I didn't see this TU story being discussed, here is a thread for it.
QuoteThe task facing Elad National Properties is as tall as the 30-story AT&T Tower.
Elad, owner of the downtown Jacksonville building, is losing one of the tower's biggest tenants this month as CSX moves hundreds of employees to the 550 Water Street building, also in downtown. It's a bit of musical chairs with CSX vacating eight floors of the AT&T Tower to lease space in a building closer to CSX's headquarters, creating a campus setting for CSX on the riverfront.
Combined with other vacancies at the AT&T Tower, the CSX departure will drive up the tower's vacancy rate to 42 percent. To fill that space, Elad must reverse the trend of companies choosing the suburbs over downtown.
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/business/2011-04-18/story/wanted-tenants-att-tower-jacksonville#ixzz1Jz80T2Mk
(http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/story_slideshow_thumb/DowntownVacancy041911.gif)
Some people could use a basic lesson in supply and demand.
What are the higher costs for landlords DT vs the burbs that lead to higher rents?
Not that this really has anything to do with this article but did you all know that the CSX HQ Building at 500 Water ST is actuallu listed by the Property Appraiser as being owned by the Seaboard Coastline Railroad. Apparently when CSX came to be they just never bothered to change the ownership name. I have also found many properties around the city that are listed as being owned by SCL or Atlantic Coastline or even St Johns River Terminal Company. Kind of interesting to see those old names still listed as owners.
Council President Webb appears to think that waiving Fair Share for developers will start the local economy (construction wise) up again ::) I guess he has just not noticed all of the empty stripmall offices and the empty buildings downtown. Someone might think we might be a tad overbuilt but hay! What do I know, I just get to pay for it like usual! johnnyroadglide.......cheaper to leave as is plus liability issue's are excluded!
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on April 19, 2011, 12:38:22 PM
What are the higher costs for landlords DT vs the burbs that lead to higher rents?
most of the office space downtown is considered Class A or B....the suburbs are a mix of Class B and C, with a spattering of Class A space....it has to do with building amenities, decorating materials, etc.
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 19, 2011, 01:08:27 PM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on April 19, 2011, 12:38:22 PM
What are the higher costs for landlords DT vs the burbs that lead to higher rents?
most of the office space downtown is considered Class A or B....the suburbs are a mix of Class B and C, with a spattering of Class A space....it has to do with building amenities, decorating materials, etc.
This just can't be, tufsu! A 40%+ vacancy rate?
Nooooo...I thought me and Stephen were liars and there is no vacancy problem anywhere downtown?
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 19, 2011, 01:08:27 PM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on April 19, 2011, 12:38:22 PM
What are the higher costs for landlords DT vs the burbs that lead to higher rents?
most of the office space downtown is considered Class A or B....the suburbs are a mix of Class B and C, with a spattering of Class A space....it has to do with building amenities, decorating materials, etc.
Acquisition costs per square foot in downtown are higher than in the suburbs. This leads to higher rents. This also leads to higher taxes, as an aside. Also, higher profile tenants with higher credit ratings and more money to spend on space in "trophy" towers leads to demand for higher rent in "postcard" ready CBD buildings as opposed to bland suburban complexes. Too bad Jacksonville does not really have any tenants here who are trying to make our downtown their postcard emblem.
Tufsu, there are actually few Class A buildings downtown. Just do a Costar search and you will see maybe 5, and aside from a couple of the buildings, Class A in Jacksonville does not stack up to Class A in most other cities. Many of the buildings in downtown Jax (including Southbank) are constructed similarly to owner-occupied buildings, meaning Class B at best. The finishes are pretty shoddy in every building I have been in. The Enterprise Center is ok and Bank Of America is ok (used to be much better when Barnett Bank was in there...also very fast elevators which is a plus but drags down the Energy Star ratings, which tenants like and owners like because they can charge higher rents).
So basically, demand creates building pricing, which effects rental rates. That's it in a nutshell. There are suburbs out there and submarkets that command higher prices and higher rents than their city's respective downtown area. Actually, this is not uncommon. In fact, Atlanta is a great market for study of office space. We are overbuilt up here and with other factors at play, average rent for Class A space ranges from $18-28/SF depending on the submarket (downtown is relatively cheap compared to Midtown and Buckhead, which are both about 30% more expensive). In Boston and DC and other cities, the office market is tight and demand is surging for trophy office space and as a result Class A space rents creeped upward, even in the heart of the recession when other cities saw their rents fall by 10-30%. Even Miami is pretty expensive/a tight market. Coral Gables and Brickell Ave can command rents well above $45/SF for Class A space (few buildings in Atlanta charge above $35/SF).
Eola is disposing of its downtown Jacksonville assets. Frankly, perhaps the best hope for downtown is if current owners eat a loss and sell their towers to even smaller funds for a lower price (i.e. based on projected cash flows from lower than current rents and more conservative lease up numbers). This can bring down rents to not only an attractive level for our market, but also to a level where some of these buildings can start to lease up. Get some options on these terms and create long term tenancy downtown and not only will these buildings be able to trade for higher values, there may even be enough demand for new buildings to bring back some of those more high profile tenants who prefer new, LEED/Energy Star rated buildings. Which brings me to another point, top tier tenants want brand new buildings to anchor. This is like a chicken vs the egg situation, but Jacksonville is in the doldrums and we will not be getting too many top tier (if any) tenants downtown for a while because of this. Big 50 law firms almost demand LEED Silver and up nowadays (probably up to LEED Gold).
One must also not forget that for newer buildings, the land acquisition alone in a denser market like a downtown can be more expensive than an entire 4 floor suburban office building. Let's not even mention construction costs and red tape/regulation. This will set the stage for what the rents will be depending on what Internal Rate of Return and perhaps Cash on Cash Return (depending on the type of deal) the owner(s) wants based on the models.
It really has little to do with decorating materials and/or amenities (that effects CAM/recoverable expenses).
Here we go again! just let it go Chris. At least CSX is shifting most of the employees over to the 550 Building and not out of Downtown. The new owners will more than likely find new tenants. I did like how the article highlighted the fact that they are looking at adding decorative lighting to the roof of the building. I just hope they follow through.
And as an interesting aside, I saw somewhere some rental rates in "downtown" Jacksonville and the highest I saw was $23.00/SF in the Everbank building. This is further proof of everything I just said regarding rental rates and tenancy (and office brokerage is not my area of work...I just like to think I have an idea :)).
This is what I said a while back about the AT&T Building:
Quote
For instance, the AT&T Tower is owned by Elad National Properties and is the group's *only* office property (is that their version of diversification? and not to mention they certainly didn't diversify by location!...basically only in FL...I wonder how their books look). They clearly don't know what the hell to do with it AND they even go so far as to label it Class A (my ass!...I guess maybe for Jacksonville...they might actually do better by truthfully calling it Class B and marketing it as such to smaller companies, though the huge floorplates don't help that). There is some major empty space in that building now or soon from what I understand and no bites to replace it (hmmm, I wonder why).
Now I sounded a little naive there. Elad should not really think about drifting from apartments at all in my opinion. If they want to get into office space, they should create a separate entity or start a new fund. The AT&T Tower is definitely dragging their apartment portfolio down. In fact, there a REITs out there looking to narrow their focus via possible asset swaps, and we are talking portfolios that are far more diversified than El-Ad's subsidiary, Elad NP.
Quote from: simms3 on April 19, 2011, 01:50:57 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 19, 2011, 01:08:27 PM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on April 19, 2011, 12:38:22 PM
What are the higher costs for landlords DT vs the burbs that lead to higher rents?
most of the office space downtown is considered Class A or B....the suburbs are a mix of Class B and C, with a spattering of Class A space....it has to do with building amenities, decorating materials, etc.
Acquisition costs per square foot in downtown are higher than in the suburbs. This leads to higher rents. This also leads to higher taxes, as an aside. Also, higher profile tenants with higher credit ratings and more money to spend on space in "trophy" towers leads to demand for higher rent in "postcard" ready CBD buildings as opposed to bland suburban complexes. Too bad Jacksonville does not really have any tenants here who are trying to make our downtown their postcard emblem.
Tufsu, there are actually few Class A buildings downtown. Just do a Costar search and you will see maybe 5, and aside from a couple of the buildings, Class A in Jacksonville does not stack up to Class A in most other cities. Many of the buildings in downtown Jax (including Southbank) are constructed similarly to owner-occupied buildings, meaning Class B at best. The finishes are pretty shoddy in every building I have been in. The Enterprise Center is ok and Bank Of America is ok (used to be much better when Barnett Bank was in there...also very fast elevators which is a plus but drags down the Energy Star ratings, which tenants like and owners like because they can charge higher rents).
So basically, demand creates building pricing, which effects rental rates. That's it in a nutshell. There are suburbs out there and submarkets that command higher prices and higher rents than their city's respective downtown area. Actually, this is not uncommon. In fact, Atlanta is a great market for study of office space. We are overbuilt up here and with other factors at play, average rent for Class A space ranges from $18-28/SF depending on the submarket (downtown is relatively cheap compared to Midtown and Buckhead, which are both about 30% more expensive). In Boston and DC and other cities, the office market is tight and demand is surging for trophy office space and as a result Class A space rents creeped upward, even in the heart of the recession when other cities saw their rents fall by 10-30%. Even Miami is pretty expensive/a tight market. Coral Gables and Brickell Ave can command rents well above $45/SF for Class A space (few buildings in Atlanta charge above $35/SF).
Eola is disposing of its downtown Jacksonville assets. Frankly, perhaps the best hope for downtown is if current owners eat a loss and sell their towers to even smaller funds for a lower price (i.e. based on projected cash flows from lower than current rents and more conservative lease up numbers). This can bring down rents to not only an attractive level for our market, but also to a level where some of these buildings can start to lease up. Get some options on these terms and create long term tenancy downtown and not only will these buildings be able to trade for higher values, there may even be enough demand for new buildings to bring back some of those more high profile tenants who prefer new, LEED/Energy Star rated buildings. Which brings me to another point, top tier tenants want brand new buildings to anchor. This is like a chicken vs the egg situation, but Jacksonville is in the doldrums and we will not be getting too many top tier (if any) tenants downtown for a while because of this. Big 50 law firms almost demand LEED Silver and up nowadays (probably up to LEED Gold).
One must also not forget that for newer buildings, the land acquisition alone in a denser market like a downtown can be more expensive than an entire 4 floor suburban office building. Let's not even mention construction costs and red tape/regulation. This will set the stage for what the rents will be depending on what Internal Rate of Return and perhaps Cash on Cash Return (depending on the type of deal) the owner(s) wants based on the models.
It really has little to do with decorating materials and/or amenities (that effects CAM/recoverable expenses).
Great post.
Really informative, thanks!
And to further add to the complication, acquisition prices are based mostly on cash flows generated from rents (also considering CAM, taxes, fees, CapEx, etc etc etc).
So rents are based on acquisition costs and acquisitions costs are based on rent, and both are a result of demand (not always...as we have seen in the last few years almost everywhere). Also, pre-2008 acquisition costs were based largely on pie in the sky abstract fundamentals and ideals, not on actual numbers. Even today in the top office markets in the country, cash flows don't mean everything. In Jacksonville's case, cash flows are weak, demand is weak, and other fundamentals are weak (and so is the outlook). As a result, current players need to throw in the towel and give newbies a chance. I would imagine underwriting is quite difficult in Jacksonville (so a broker puts in all that extra work to value the property for the seller and choose an appropriate buyer, and because the building sells for so little he makes so much less than a broker who does less work and spends less time on a deal in another city...that really stinks).
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 19, 2011, 01:29:37 PM
This just can't be, tufsu! A 40%+ vacancy rate?
Nooooo...I thought me and Stephen were liars and there is no vacancy problem anywhere downtown?
dude...I never said there weren't pockets of emptiness....but you claimed that downtown was 90% vacant (because one was)...and that AT&T tower was one of the worst ones...so, considerin g that this UPCOMING vacancy will put AT&T at 42%, what was it last year...maybe 25%?
btw..have you chosen to turn a blind eye to the news that the Modis building is close to signing a major tenant?
as fsujax said, let it go
I have heard a rumor (maybe a bit more than a rumor) that ******** wants to take over the AT&T building. I wish I was at liberty to say but it is just one company downtown moving to have their Name more prominently displayed not a new operation.
I really loved seeing that the JEDC was working to bring two 100 job companies to Jacksonville. Our incentive packages must really SUCK if that is all they can get to come to downtown Jacksonville.
Quote from: stephendare on April 19, 2011, 04:26:47 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 19, 2011, 03:46:31 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 19, 2011, 01:29:37 PM
This just can't be, tufsu! A 40%+ vacancy rate?
Nooooo...I thought me and Stephen were liars and there is no vacancy problem anywhere downtown?
dude...I never said there weren't pockets of emptiness....but you claimed that downtown was 90% vacant (because one was)...and that AT&T tower was one of the worst ones...so, considerin g that this UPCOMING vacancy will put AT&T at 42%, what was it last year...maybe 25%?
btw..have you chosen to turn a blind eye to the news that the Modis building is close to signing a major tenant?
as fsujax said, let it go
meh. Im with Chris on this one.
A year ago, you were doing your best to discredit every word that either of us had to say on the crisis in downtown vacancies. You ridiculed, dismissed, and the (embarrassingly I might add) tried your best to disprove every word that either of us posted about the failure of downtown.
And for what reason?
You were totally wrong, as the outcome has amply demonstrated.
I suspect you were hoping that a little pr, and not bringing attention to the downtown negatives would somehow allow downtown 'time to recover'.
But the only thing that happened, TUFSU, as a result of your hollow denials and the constant spin coming from others in the downtown conversation, namely DVI and others is that you delayed any real response to the actual problem.
I told you many times that it was apparent that the downtown would have to completely collapse before you would admit to it, and this happens to be one of those very buildings which was discussed at the time.
Hopefully, you can see the plain truth in front of you and can agree that none of what we printed was 'alarmist', 'overstating the case', or any other such nonsense, and we can all get to the task (finally) of fixing the underlying problems that led to this disaster.
Yes, poor Tufsu has not had a very good couple weeks has he?
His claims, arguments, and accusations just keep exploding one after the other...
(http://www.crossingwallstreet.com/sp_aaib059_16x20_the-hindenburg-disaster-posters_707.jpg)
right back at you Chris
-radio crackles- We interrupt this broadcast to bring you breaking news: The Hindenberg has... -radio whistles and warped- Tufsu just threw an acknowledgement right back at Chris after a long debate of whose validation is sufficient for their topic. Follow up story will occur at an end of the day.
-Josh
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 20, 2011, 10:33:49 AM
right back at you Chris
Well, except mine aren't.
The positions and viewpoints I've had on Downtown for the past couple years, including the number of occupants, the commercial vacancy issues, the policy reasons behind it, parking, etc., etc., have all turned out to be exactly as I said they were, despite your popping into every discussion to call me everything from an exaggerator to a fabricator.
A year ago, you were still arguing there were 30k workers downtown, and year before that, you were still arguing the current parking policies were absolutely awesome. When someone pointed out the lack of liveability and restaurants Downtown, you tried to say he was wrong and presented a list that included gas stations and Winn-Dixie as "Dining Options." You've gone back and deleted most of your award-winningly embarassing posts on these issues, which I wouldn't have noticed if you hadn't actually deleted one of them at the exact same time I was trying to quote it.
But time is the test, isn't it?
Since then, just about every major employer downtown aside from CSX (which not coincidentally, has its own parking) has abandoned downtown for the suburbs, citing the asinine parking policies you defended as a main reason. DVI was finally forced to admit that Downtown has become largely vacant, with a full 1/3 of all structures being either completely vacant or less than 1/3 occupied, and the rest not far behind. And the truly shocking thing is that this is after they've torn down most of the commercial structures in the core, so these dire figures are even more frightening when you realize it's that bad even after overall capacity has been so severely reduced.
And finally, the individual landlords downtown are no longer able to hide behind nonsensical C&W reports that somehow always manage to show a rosy 80%+/- occupancy rate, when every building you walk into is half-empty and getting worse. The Independent Life tower faces likely foreclosure, and the AT&T building, the largest office building in the city, just admitted they have a staggering 40%+ vacancy rate.
Unfortunately, my statements haven't blown up, Downtown has. You, and many others like DVI until recently, have worsened the problem by at every turn confusing, conflating, and covering up the true state of the problem, and for what reason I don't know. Such tactics went a long way towards sidetracking any productive debate, and delayed public awareness of the issues at a time when public awareness and support were critical.
Moving forward, I would hope we do not have to go through this period of fiddling while something burns again.
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 20, 2011, 12:05:58 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 20, 2011, 11:47:29 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 20, 2011, 10:33:49 AM
right back at you Chris
Well, except mine aren't.
of course not...you're never wrong
i think you're both kind ov silly at this point. while i tend to agree with chris' points a lot more, the extent to which you two turn almost any thread about downtown into 'i'm not a liar, you are!' is getting a little embarassing.
Ouch. And on that note, I ll go to another thread ..............
This would be so great. Fingers crossed!
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=533416
Now that the cat is out of the bag I can confirm they are very serious.
That would be great if this happens. Let's all cross our fingers that COJ and the Parking Cartel's normal policy of throwing as many monkey wrenches and money-grabs into the works as possible can be put on hold long enough to get this deal done. One step at a time, and this is certainly a step in the right direction.
It would be a very smart move for Everbank. The headquarters and operations center will be literally up the street from each other almost. The more workers downtown the better. If we can have more companies to relocate downtown, that would the start of something really good. The only negative about the AT&T building is you pay a heafty amount for parking. I knew someone who worked for AT&T and was telling me how much is taking out of her paycheck for parking.
Awesome news if it becomes reality . :)
not if they park and ride the Skyway. It could be a ridership boon for the system.
I hope if this becomes reality it'll start a trend, especially among local companies. I wonder if they would be looking to buy naming rights too.
Quote from: fsujax on April 21, 2011, 02:31:47 PM
not if they park and ride the Skyway. It could be a ridership boon for the system.
That would be awesome. The much critiqued skyway needs to be used , rather than abandoned. :)
Just imagine....JTA able to help seal the deal with EverBank to relocate Downtown, by opening up its Skyway lots for either reduced or free parking and Skyway passes to its employees. Take that Skyway haters! tear it down my a*$!
Little comic for you guys...
Bank of America (Obvious building itself): Herrrrrp derrp, I am the TALLEST building in DT! I am the Da Man!!!
Wells Fargo (Modis Building): Uh huh! I am right next to you! You are only slighter taller because you have the cheap hat on!
CHALLENGER APPEARS!
Everbank (AT&T Building): Da da daaaaaaa! Lookie here! I am here to save the day (downtown)! -shows off the guns-
-Josh
:) cute
Quote from: wsansewjs on April 21, 2011, 02:50:23 PM
Little comic for you guys...
Bank of America (Obvious building itself): Herrrrrp derrp, I am the TALLEST building in DT! I am the Da Man!!!
Wells Fargo (Modis Building): Uh huh! I am right next to you! You are only slighter taller because you have the cheap hat on!
CHALLENGER APPEARS!
Everbank (AT&T Building): Da da daaaaaaa! Lookie here! I am here to save the day (downtown)! -shows off the guns-
-Josh
I see you and I have the same vision. LMAO
QuoteNow that the cat is out of the bag I can confirm they are very serious.
Didn't EOLA, owner of the Modis/Independent Life tower (for all you old dudes/dudettes) say they had a major tenant they expected to close within 45-60 days? No offense to ATT, but this property is the prime real estate on MNF and Jags games as well as on every magent, post card, and the like. Wells Fargo took over Wachovia, why would they move from the southbank to northbank? They already have a presence on a building. I don't see it happening, but I do see a major player at the EOLA property.
Yeah they said that almost a year ago when Adecco first pulled out, and I said at the time it seemed awfully convenient when they were trying to renegotiate terms to cure a looming default with their lender. It's been awhile, and nothing has materialized with Wells or the other rumored occupants. That said, I agree with your assessment, if the costs are comparable, then EverBank would be foolish not to go for the Independent Life building as opposed to AT&T, it's more central, has better visibility, and is generally a nicer structure. I would imagine in this market the bank can basically just name their own price. Interesting to see which they pick.
Just seen this online. This is only a small dent in our downtown occupancy rate, but atleast businesses are starting to consider downtown.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/print-edition/2011/04/15/move-from-suburbs-to-downtown-bucks.html
Well, with big ol' plate full of old-school nostalgia and a couple of sides of an already developed business and maybe even a helping of residing in San Marco, Riverside or the like.... Oh yeah, not to mention ever increasing gas prices, cheap rents and a possiblilty of having the whole area re-established.....
Why wouldn't someone move their business from the southside to DT? Business meeting with new clients? Sure, take the express elevator up, I'll have some snacks waiting while you enjoy the view of our great city & the majestic St. Johns River from 10 floors up. Or.... Why don't you wait for us while enjoying the view of our retention pond lakeview terrace while we finish up this sales call.
DT has the moxie. DT has the status. DT can have the view. DT just needs the people to realize why it is that they moved here to begin with. Was is the belief of living in a growing city or was it the reality of being forced to live in a generic suburb. DT Jax only looks like DT Jax. The southside that we have could be 10 miles from NYC, but it would still be called New Jersey.
The big relocations are nice, but the smaller ones are great too! Small adds up to big in the long run and hopefully we can get the vacancy rate down and once again have a strong employment base on the Northbank.
Quote from: duvaldude08 on April 28, 2011, 12:17:26 AM
Just seen this online. This is only a small dent in our downtown occupancy rate, but atleast businesses are starting to consider downtown.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/print-edition/2011/04/15/move-from-suburbs-to-downtown-bucks.html
They picked a very special building, too.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on April 28, 2011, 12:40:43 AM
Well, with big ol' plate full of old-school nostalgia and a couple of sides of an already developed business and maybe even a helping of residing in San Marco, Riverside or the like.... Oh yeah, not to mention ever increasing gas prices, cheap rents and a possiblilty of having the whole area re-established.....
Why wouldn't someone move their business from the southside to DT? Business meeting with new clients? Sure, take the express elevator up, I'll have some snacks waiting while you enjoy the view of our great city & the majestic St. Johns River from 10 floors up. Or.... Why don't you wait for us while enjoying the view of our retention pond lakeview terrace while we finish up this sales call.
DT has the moxie. DT has the status. DT can have the view. DT just needs the people to realize why it is that they moved here to begin with. Was is the belief of living in a growing city or was it the reality of being forced to live in a generic suburb. DT Jax only looks like DT Jax. The southside that we have could be 10 miles from NYC, but it would still be called New Jersey.
DT need to choose to compete with the burbs rental rates.
Quote from: mtraininjax on April 21, 2011, 05:36:10 PM
QuoteNow that the cat is out of the bag I can confirm they are very serious.
Didn't EOLA, owner of the Modis/Independent Life tower (for all you old dudes/dudettes) say they had a major tenant they expected to close within 45-60 days? No offense to ATT, but this property is the prime real estate on MNF and Jags games as well as on every magent, post card, and the like. Wells Fargo took over Wachovia, why would they move from the southbank to northbank? They already have a presence on a building. I don't see it happening, but I do see a major player at the EOLA property.
Wachovia only maintained about 3 floors and a branch in the Old Gulf Life/Southtrust building on the Southbank and that has dwindled down to only a branch presence there for about a year now. First Union/Wachovia's major presence has been in the Enterprise Center attached to the Omni since the building was built circa 85. Floors 1 through 11 are all Wachovia/Wells Fargo employees.
QuoteDT need to choose to compete with the burbs rental rates.
Not just match them, but slash them in half. There just is not enough of a reason, other than having a job, to really want to move a business downtown, it costs more to park and the rents are high compared to the burbs. The rents almost need to be in desperation level in some of the buildings who do not show as well.
+1 if the rental incentives are good and parking/transportation made attractive , perhaps that would move tenants back to Downtown.
Quoteif the rental incentives are good and parking/transportation made attractive , perhaps that would move tenants back to Downtown.
The US Army Corps of Engineers used to be located in the ATT Tower. Why did they move to San Marco Blvd? I need to ask my buddy who works there, but I'll go out on a limb here and say it was cost of space....
Was the Army Corp of Engineers at one time in the Federal Building?.. I know their print shop definitely was, as I worked at the site many times repairing equipment there.
Quote from: mtraininjax on April 28, 2011, 01:58:38 PM
Quoteif the rental incentives are good and parking/transportation made attractive , perhaps that would move tenants back to Downtown.
The US Army Corps of Engineers used to be located in the ATT Tower. Why did they move to San Marco Blvd? I need to ask my buddy who works there, but I'll go out on a limb here and say it was cost of space....
Army Corp of Engineers have been in the Prudential building for atleast ten years now. I started at Prudential in 2006 and the army Corp had already been there for a couple years then.
QuoteArmy Corp of Engineers have been in the Prudential building for atleast ten years now. I started at Prudential in 2006 and the army Corp had already been there for a couple years then.
Dude, all I can tell you is that I used to call on them in the ATT building:
US Army Corps of Engineers
400 West Bay Street
23rd Floor
Jacksonville, FL 32202
I don't know my zip codes like Stephen does, but correct me, without asking for mine or Stephen's birth certificate, 32202 does appear to be a downtown zip code? Could be that the Typhoon of information has yet to hit us...
Does anyone know how I might be able to find out which tenants occupy certain floors of the AT&T bldg? Is the information out there on the interwebz somewhere?
Yes, for subscription. Check out Costar. My subscription is for the lower Southeast (GA, FL, AL, SC). It is not always accurate for office buildings, though.
They came and did a presentation at our office for their new app and did not even list us as a tenant in their presentation, even though we are an anchor tenant for our building along with Morgan Stanley and UBS. We send guys out to run buildings just as Costar does to build up our own proprietary data. Guys, usually interns, literally have to dodge security, use daddy's connections to get past elevator turnstiles in a building or whatver, and walk up 30-60 floors of office space, checking tenancies. It's a work out. Costar probably has a guy stationed in north FL that does that. Are you asking because the building is going into special servicing?
If the vacancy rates and average prices are correct as listed in Lake's first post the Downtown landlords are doing better than the suburban. They may have more vacancies but the higher rates make up for it.
Per hundred feet available
Rate X leased area
18.31x73.7=1349.44
16.69X80.4=1341.87
Quote from: simms3 on September 14, 2011, 01:03:43 AM
Yes, for subscription. Check out Costar. My subscription is for the lower Southeast (GA, FL, AL, SC). It is not always accurate for office buildings, though.
They came and did a presentation at our office for their new app and did not even list us as a tenant in their presentation, even though we are an anchor tenant for our building along with Morgan Stanley and UBS. We send guys out to run buildings just as Costar does to build up our own proprietary data. Guys, usually interns, literally have to dodge security, use daddy's connections to get past elevator turnstiles in a building or whatver, and walk up 30-60 floors of office space, checking tenancies. It's a work out. Costar probably has a guy stationed in north FL that does that. Are you asking because the building is going into special servicing?
You've got my curiousity up, what industry are you in? We had cancelled our CoStar subscription but are picking it back up, on a scaled back version.
Costar has some great data sets. Just so darned expensive!
Thanks for the suggestion, simms. Sent you a pm.