data from http://www.grubb-ellis.com

 

 

Total Metro Office Space:

 

Columbus 40,069,000

Cleveland 37,819,000

Cincinnati 36,281,000

 

CBD Office Space:

 

Cleveland 21,139,000

Cincinnati 12,575,000

Columbus 12,427,000

 

Metro Office Space Under Construction This Quarter:

 

Cincinnati 1,049,000

Columbus 676,000

Cleveland 131,000

 

CBD Office Space Under Construction This Quarter:

 

Columbus 165,000

Cleveland 30,000

Cincinnati 0

 

Metro Office Vacancy:

 

Cincinnati 19.7%

Cleveland 18.3%

Columbus 15.8%

 

CBD Office Vacancy:

 

Cleveland 20.1%

Cincinnati 19.4%

Columbus 14.1%

 

Metro Net Office Absorption Year to Date:

 

Cincinnati 538,000

Columbus 515,000

Cleveland 181,000

 

CBD Net Office Absorption Year to Date:

 

Columbus 177,000

Cincinnati 1,000

Cleveland -21,000

 

Metro Class A Asking Rent:

 

Cleveland $22.84

Cincinnati $21.31

Columbus $19.56

 

CBD Class A Asking Rent:

 

Cleveland $23.64

Cincinnati $22.60

Columbus $20.66

 

 

There are so many numbers, telling so many stories it's mind boggling!

CBD Office Vacancy:

 

Cleveland 20.1%

Cincinnati 19.4%

Columbus 14.1%

 

Now THAT one is a surprise.

^Thank all the surface lots.

That is a good way to skew the numbers...but even those are occupied.

There are so many numbers, telling so many stories it's mind boggling!

 

That's what I thought too... for example... Cincy Metro has the least office space... but is building the most by far right now... yet is the only market to not have anything under construction in its CBD... and despite having the most under construction has the highest metro office vacancy rate yet has also seen the most metro office absorption this year... and on and on... it's quite a tangle of numbers and trends amongst the three C's.

and amazingly for a list of stats, which we can always find something to disagree about, for once it all seems to be about correct.

That is a good way to skew the numbers...but even those are occupied.

 

What, by people working in their cars?

 

But really: each one of those lots represents a missing building and the potentially empty offices therein. I think this merely illustrates how under-resourced CBD Columbus is.

 

Just for giggles, what's the vacancy rate of comparable-sized CBDs in other parts of the country?

That is a good way to skew the numbers...but even those are occupied.

 

What, by people working in their cars?

 

Cars ARE people, silly.

Interesting.  I've never looked at the Grubb and Ellis number before - they are significantly higher than CB Richard Ellis which is my usual source.

 

Keep in mind that most of these surveys only include leasable space, so owner-occupied buildings don't get included.

 

That is a good way to skew the numbers...but even those are occupied.

 

What, by people working in their cars?

 

Cars ARE people, silly.

 

These numbers definitely are more than meets the eye.

Keep in mind that most of these surveys only include leasable space, so owner-occupied buildings don't get included.

 

Thank goodness someone else has said this now besides me!  But the oddity with the Cincy numbers I think can be explained by how office construction (especially in CBD's) in the midwest/Ohio goes in cycles.  Unfortunately it's small cycles for the C's...but Cincy just release 303 Broadway onto the market.  As a result there is no office under construction right now in the CBD.  I don't know if the other cities have had any major office bldgs. built in the last two years or so, but it may be a reason behind that oddity.

I'd imagine an empty Amtrust tower in Cleveland played a large role in the vacant CBD space.

Keep in mind that most of these surveys only include leasable space, so owner-occupied buildings don't get included.

 

I was going to say this as well.  For example in Cincy, all of the P&G space, Convergy's space, etc. would not be counted.  Also, each real estate company has their own criteria.  For instance, I used to work at CB Richard Ellis, we would not even count the Amtrust Center in Cleveland unless it was being actively marketed and not considered "future use or mothballed space".  Furthermore is sublease space, some companies count it as rented space, which it is, someone is paying for the space even though they are not using it.  But does this give an accurate account of the amount of space available?  No.  It is competing in the marketplace with unrented available space, usually for a lower rent per square foot.

Keep in mind that most of these surveys only include leasable space, so owner-occupied buildings don't get included.

 

Also, I don't believe government/school office buildings are included either. If that's the case, Columbus' total office space would be much higher.

 

And while it's true that the buildings not being marketed (ie: Ameritrust in Cleveland) aren't counted, there are a number of older, Class C office buildings which are still occupied by office users. But the buildings may be owned by someone ultimately wishing to convert the building into housing or another non-office use. The nine-story Park Building on Cleveland's Public Square fell into that category until last year when the last office user departed and the owner got approvals to convert the building to condos. I wonder how many other buildings in Ohio's 3-C's fall into that category?

I think this is all class A space, not B and C included.

I think this is all class A space, not B and C included.

 

 

my gut reaction is no (only gut), PD ran an article about 6 months ago, and Class A was around 9-10%

 

As for Ameritrust, I doubt that's included at all since its not actively being marketed (and clearly is class F)

I also wrote an article on downtown Cleveland office space earlier this year. CBRE said the vacancy rate for Class A downtown was under 10 percent. Grubb & Ellis said Class A vacancy downtown was more like 14 percent.

 

That's why I think the statistics quoted earlier are for all classes.

Yes, the numbers I quoted are for all classes.  You can find the breakdowns for A,B and C on the Grubb and Ellis regional research page.  However, there are no formulas to determine what is Class A, B or C... and these standards vary from market to market.

It would be interesting to see what the national stats show across the country to see how Ohio is fairing compared to the US averages.

Just to give you a sense of how the numbers can vary, Grubb and Ellis says that the Indianapolis office market is 46 million square feet.  That clearly includes some outlying areas such as Delaware County.  CB Richard Ellis says Indy has about 30 million square feet.  Colliers also has Indy at 30 million square feet.

 

Glad to see the Cincy area potentially adding another 500,000 square feet of vacant space to its current 20% office vacancy. :wink2:

So Columbus has the lowest vacancy rate, but also has the lowest rent asking price...  Are supply and demand not doing there jobs here?

Maybe it has the lowest vacancy rate because it has the lowest asking price???  Maybe some of these Columbus tenents would choose to set up shop in Cleveland if that area's rents were competitive?  I don't know... I'm just speaking in hypotheticals.

 

  Here is some more fun with numbers. I am only considering Cincinnati because I am more familiar with it.

 

12,575,000 CBD / 36,281,000 metro = 34%

The CBD contains 34% of the metro office space, or roughly 1 of 3 office workers work downtown.

 

  The CBD measures about 3500 feet x 4000 feet. I used my own definition of the CBD, and scaled the distances off of a map. The area is bounded by Thrid Street, 12th street, John Street, and Broadway and contains 81 city blocks. Two of those blocks are occupied by highways. I am NOT counting FFW and the riverfront, Broadway commons, most of Over-the-Rhine or the West End.

 

  3,500' x 4000' = 14,000,000 square feet. 

 

  FAR = Floor Area Ratio = 36,281,000 / 14,000,000 = 2.6

 

  Assuming that buildings take up half of the area and streets take up the other half,

 

  Average number of stories = 36,281,000 / 7,000,000 = 5.18

 

  Disclaimer: the CBD boundaries may vary slightly. Only commercial space is counted. Hotels, residential, government buildings, etc., are not counted.

 

  On the flip side, parking areas east of Broadway, on the riverfront, etc., are not counted either. Please don't get picky. I am trying to keep it simple.

 

    The surprising thing is that the average building height is only 6 stories! Therefore, by covering half of the area with 6 story buildings and leaving the other half for streets, Cincinnati could have the same amount of floor space without skyscrapers. The massing would be similar to Paris, France.

 

    Food for thought.

 

    :-)

 

 

 

 

 

   

I don't know if this is unusual, but according to DCI

 

"Forty-four percent of downtown’s top 25 office buildings are

owner-occupied, including all six Fortune 500 companies

who call downtown home. "

^cincinnati

From my understanding that is unusual...but I think it's a great thing to have ALL of your big dogs vested in your downtown.  It also shows that there is significant staying power with Downtown Cincinnati.  It would take a hell of a lot to ask a company like P&G, Macy's, Kroger, Chiquita, 5/3 to pack up and relocate...now that doesn't shield them from being bought out, but it does make it more likely that jobs would stay put after a merger/acquisition and not be shipped elsewhere.

It would be interesting to get the total office space versus leasable office space, but that information does not appear readily available.  I found a couple of places that had some information - Office space.com shows Cincy at 53,000,000 and Columbus at 41,500,000, but I am not sure of the methodology or accuracy.  I guess the numbers can vary a lot, but the ugly layout is below.  Cleveland was not available on this site.  This is off topic but what jumped out more was the amount of retail space in Columbus - 36,000,000 square feet - wow.

 

 

Property Statistics for the Cincinnati Region

    Properties  Buildings  Total

  Square Feet    Available

Spaces

Office 870  1,103  53,096,980  1,412 

Industrial/Flex  976  1,170  88,861,377  502 

Retail 335  394  21,645,178  342 

Land 178  -    -    -   

Total  2,359  2,667  163,603,535  2,256 

 

 

Property Statistics for the Columbus Region

    Properties  Buildings  Total

  Square Feet    Available

Spaces

Office 859  1,228  41,529,081  2,099 

Industrial/Flex  570  766  83,720,013  772 

Retail 380  550  36,875,430  906 

Land 351  -    -    -   

Total  2,160  2,544  162,124,524  3,777 

 

 

This is off topic but what jumped out more was the amount of retail space in Columbus - 36,000,000 square feet - wow.

 

It makes some sense...much of Cbus' growth is more recent that Cincinnati's, and recent job growth has come primarily in the retail/service sector jobs over the past decade or so.  It also supports some of what Social Compact was illustrating about Cincinnati's inner-city neighborhoods being under-retailed and what not.

I have always felt Columbus was "over" retailed, but I was still surprised by that number.  I think you can add the whole test market aspect, which causes a lot of newer retailers/restaurants to open there to see how they will do.

America is over-retailed. I recently saw a bar chart (damned if I can remember where) that showed the US has several times more retail space per-capita than the next closest nation. I was able to find some statistics that showed, for example, that the US has six times more retail space per-capita than the UK.

 

A retail discussion along these lines might even be worth its own thread sometime, but on a localized level for metro areas to develop a retail strategy.

A few responses in one post:

 

-Columbus's economy is largely based on government, insurance, and finance.  All those are office-based businesses.  Cleveland's is based on manufacturing and medicine.  Those need less office space, and the offices that do exist (in hospitals, medical centers, and plants) may not be included in the original numbers.

 

-"Under retailing" in inner city neighborhoods, presumably based on square feet, comes from the fact that many inner city retailers are independents working on a tight budget in cramped spaces.  Their budgets are tightened by both low operating capital and both the direct and indirect costs of operating in a higher crime neighborhood.

 

-"Over retailing" based on space is likely the result of the fact that Americans prefer more space than our counterparts overseas.  The British and Japanese (particularly in London and Tokyo) are accustomed to cramped spaces that would make even the most urbanist-minded Manhattanite a tad claustrophobic. 

 

-"Economic" over retailing is self-correcting.  The laws of supply and demand are really more like physical laws than the creations of man.  If there's too much supply to meet the demand, the supply will be reduced.  Likewise, unmet demand will be addressed.  This may be a little rough on existing retailers who don't respond to changing market conditions, but there's really no direct recognition of "we were doing it first" in our economy. 

America is over-retailed. I recently saw a bar chart (damned if I can remember where) that showed the US has several times more retail space per-capita than the next closest nation. I was able to find some statistics that showed, for example, that the US has six times more retail space per-capita than the UK.

 

A retail discussion along these lines might even be worth its own thread sometime, but on a localized level for metro areas to develop a retail strategy.

 

I saw the same thing...could it have been in the latest issue of Planning Magazine?

A few responses in one post:

 

-"Economic" over retailing is self-correcting. The laws of supply and demand are really more like physical laws than the creations of man. If there's too much supply to meet the demand, the supply will be reduced. Likewise, unmet demand will be addressed. This may be a little rough on existing retailers who don't respond to changing market conditions, but there's really no direct recognition of "we were doing it first" in our economy.

 

I have to disagree on this one. Retail will continue to be built where there is a market. With new homes going up in the burbs, you'll see more and more retail construction. So what then happens to all the old storefronts in Lakewood, Cleveland, etc. Nothing. They sit vacant. They are "outdated". There is no market correction, only market saturation.

 

I also think that you forget to take into account geography and density when comparing Japan and the UK to American retail. We're sprawling out like crazy with big boxes going up all over the place. The boxes are massive and could fit well over 100 small mom and pop stores within them. Japan can't build that way because of land values and a lack of space. England wouldn't build that way because of how their cities are set up.

America is over-retailed. I recently saw a bar chart (damned if I can remember where) that showed the US has several times more retail space per-capita than the next closest nation.

 

I think this article by Kunstler that you posted in the general sprawl thread is what you're talking about.

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=7292.msg194116#msg194116

A few responses in one post:

 

-"Economic" over retailing is self-correcting.  The laws of supply and demand are really more like physical laws than the creations of man.  If there's too much supply to meet the demand, the supply will be reduced.  Likewise, unmet demand will be addressed.   This may be a little rough on existing retailers who don't respond to changing market conditions, but there's really no direct recognition of "we were doing it first" in our economy. 

 

I have to disagree on this one. Retail will continue to be built where there is a market. With new homes going up in the burbs, you'll see more and more retail construction. So what then happens to all the old storefronts in Lakewood, Cleveland, etc. Nothing. They sit vacant. They are "outdated". There is no market correction, only market saturation.

 

That depends on the meaning of the word "correction".  Retail follows population.  That will continue as long as the American consumer base favors convenience.

 

I worked in Strongsville during what I suppose were the early days of its "boom" (1994-96).  The nearest malls as far as I could tell were Parmatown and Great Northern (unless you want to count Southland).  There was one very small bookstore and one small record store.  It was inevitable that South Park Mall (excuse me for still calling it that, since I am sure they only changed it because of all the calls for Eric Cartman) was going to be built, and indeed construction was beginning when I left.  Shopping at lunchtime, as I prefer to do, was a royal PITA.

 

I also think that you forget to take into account geography and density when comparing Japan and the UK to American retail. We're sprawling out like crazy with big boxes going up all over the place. The boxes are massive and could fit well over 100 small mom and pop stores within them. Japan can't build that way because of land values and a lack of space. England wouldn't build that way because of how their cities are set up.

 

That's pretty much exactly what I said, so I don't disagree.  But I would still maintain that "big box" stores with wide aisles are driven not by sprawl, but by the same part of the American psychology that drives sprawl, and for that matter the preference for private over public transportation.  We dislike crowding and are possessive of our personal space.

 

Certainly, there's an economic tradeoff.  In places like Marc's the aisles are narrower, stuff is packed in more tightly, and the prices are lower.  Square feet cost money, both for the initial purchase and the upkeep.  Some customers choose price, some choose comfort.  It's a tradeoff.

 

The British and Japanese have been living in close quarters for centuries, so they are more accustomed to crowding.

 

-"Over retailing" based on space is likely the result of the fact that Americans prefer more space than our counterparts overseas.   The British and Japanese (particularly in London and Tokyo) are accustomed to cramped spaces that would make even the most urbanist-minded Manhattanite a tad claustrophobic. 

 

 

tokyo maybe, i dk i'll find out next summer when we are going, but definately not london. london has generally the same size/style retail spaces as nyc (ie., large dept stores/small shops). if anything nyc has more crowded retail in neighborhoods like koreatown and the chinatowns, of which london has no comparison (but which i imagine tokyo has even more so, we'll see soon enough).

 

ps - count me in as another who finds the blue font coloring out of place on this forum and very hard to read. too bad.