IAMC Dispatch
Vol. 4, No. 10, October 2005

a newsletter for corporate
real estate executives

Forum for Recovery

New Members

IAMC People & Projects

Research and Resources

Sponsor Spotlight

IAMC Board of Directors

Contact Us

IAMC Dispatch

ECover Letter


The semi-annual Global Market Rents study issued in August by CB Richard Ellis found only four U.S. cities ranked in the world’s 50 priciest office districts: Midtown Manhattan (No. 27), Washington, D.C. (No. 37), Boston, Mass., (No. 45) and Stamford, Conn. (No. 49). What’s more, only 21 U.S. markets placed in the Top 100. "From an occupancy cost perspective, the U.S. remains a great place to do business," said Ward Caswell, CB Richard Ellis’ Director of Information Management. "While U.S. rents are rising, they aren’t rising at the same rate as they are internationally, even when accounting for the recent appreciation of the dollar against foreign currencies."

The full top 50 locations as of mid-2005 are below. See the equally semi-annual Site Selection/NAI Global Industrial Location Index, published in the March and September issues of Site Selection, for further data and cross-referencing.

 

City

Occupation Cost

   

US$ /sq ft/annum

€ /sq m/month

£ /sq ft/annum

Aus$ /sq m/annum

Can$ /sq ft/annum

End 2004 Ranking

1

London (West End), England

  178.67

132.59

98.07

 2,505.52

    220.30

1

2

Tokyo (Inner Central), Japan

  131.10

97.29

71.96

 1,838.51

    161.65

3

3

Tokyo (Outer Central), Japan

  123.39

91.57

67.73

 1,730.37

    152.14

4

4

London (City), England

  119.11

88.39

65.38

 1,670.35

    146.87

2

5

Paris, France

    89.58

66.47

49.17

 1,256.15

    110.45

5

6

Moscow, Russia

    85.29

63.29

46.81

 1,195.98

    105.16

10

7

Dublin, Ireland

    81.18

60.24

44.56

 1,138.41

    100.09

8

8

Hong Kong

    75.85

56.29

41.63

 1,063.69

      93.52

17

9

Edinburgh, Scotland

    75.80

56.25

41.61

 1,062.95

      93.46

9

10

Manchester, England

    73.99

54.91

40.62

 1,037.64

      91.23

7

11

Leeds, England

    69.48

51.56

38.14

    974.37

      85.67

NC

12

Zurich, Switzerland

    67.88

50.37

37.26

    951.87

      83.69

13

13

Birmingham, England

    67.68

50.22

37.15

    949.06

      83.45

6

14

Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    65.40

48.53

35.90

    917.06

      80.63

NC

15

Frankfurt, Germany

    63.57

47.17

34.89

    891.46

      78.38

15

16

Bristol, England

    63.17

46.87

34.67

    885.79

      77.88

NC

16

Glasgow, Scotland

    63.17

46.87

34.67

    885.79

      77.88

12

18

Paris La Defense, France

    63.05

46.79

34.61

    884.21

      77.74

NC

19

Seoul, South Korea

    61.74

45.82

33.89

    865.81

      76.13

18

20

Milan, Italy

    60.99

45.26

33.48

    855.26

      75.20

14

21

Aberdeen, Scotland

    57.30

42.52

31.45

    803.54

      70.65

NC

22

Munich, Germany

    57.13

42.39

31.36

    801.15

      70.44

19

23

Mumbai (Bombay), India

    56.43

41.87

30.97

    791.30

      69.57

23

24

Geneva, Switzerland

    55.67

41.31

30.56

    780.67

      68.64

16

25

Luxembourg City, Luxembourg

    54.63

40.54

29.99

    766.14

      67.36

11

26

Jersey, England

    54.14

40.18

29.72

    759.25

      66.76

NC

27

New York -  Midtown Manhattan

    53.69

39.84

29.47

    752.91

      66.20

28

28

Madrid, Spain

    52.89

39.25

29.03

    741.76

      65.22

21

29

Liverpool, England

    51.43

38.17

28.23

    721.29

      63.42

NC

30

Brussels, Belgium

    49.33

36.61

27.08

    691.81

      60.83

22

31

Taipei, Taiwan*

    48.16

35.74

26.44

    675.39

      59.38

34

32

Stockholm, Sweden

    48.14

35.73

26.43

    675.12

      59.36

20

33

Rome, Italy

    45.62

33.85

25.04

    639.74

      56.25

26

34

Athens, Greece

    44.20

32.80

24.26

    619.79

      54.50

24

35

New Delhi, India

    43.06

31.95

23.63

    603.78

      53.09

32

36

Budapest, Hungary

    42.61

31.62

23.39

    597.48

      52.53

55

37

Washington, DC (CBD)

    41.84

31.05

22.97

    586.74

      51.59

33

38

Barcelona, Spain

    41.82

31.04

22.96

    586.52

      51.57

29

39

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

    41.69

30.94

22.89

    584.68

      51.41

50

40

Hamburg, Germany

    41.26

30.62

22.65

    578.61

      50.87

45

41

Amsterdam, Netherlands

    40.72

30.22

22.35

    571.02

      50.21

27

42

San Juan, Puerto Rico

    40.56

30.10

22.26

    568.72

      50.01

35

43

Shanghai (Pudong), China

    40.49

30.05

22.22

    567.78

      49.92

39

44

Sydney, Australia+

    40.43

30.00

22.19

    567.01

      49.85

NC+

45

Boston (CBD)

    39.65

29.42

21.76

    556.03

      48.89

38

46

Berlin, Germany

    38.94

28.89

21.37

    546.03

      48.01

41

47

Shanghai (Puxi), China

    38.83

28.82

21.32

    544.56

      47.88

47

48

Toronto, Canada (CBD)

    37.71

27.99

20.70

    528.86

      46.50

30

49

Stamford, Connecticut

    37.67

27.95

20.68

    528.26

      46.45

NC

50

Ottawa, Canada

    37.62

27.92

20.65

    527.56

      46.39

40


The EU on October 5 issued a new policy designed to make Europe as a whole more attractive to industry. But more than one multinational chemical concern is watching the European Union with increasing wariness as it considers whether to adopt new regulations on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals (known by the acronym of REACH). U.S. Chamber of Commerce officials have threatened to sue. While final legislation will not be produced until the end of the year, initial drafts include some 30,000 chemicals. The EU’s own low-end projection of the cost of compliance over the next dozen or so years is US$3.4 billion.


Ever start talking about LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) green building standards, and find a bunch of furrowed brows? You’re not alone. According to a survey of public owners by construction consulting firm PinnacleOne, almost half of the respondents were unfamiliar with LEED standards, even though 60 percent of them had implemented projects with energy efficiency designs within the past year. Only 29 percent said they currently use or plan to use LEED in the coming year. Of those owners with no plans to implement green building standards, almost two-thirds (65 percent) cited a lack of demand for these improvements and 26 percent didn’t believe the LEED standards were worth the increased cost. The West LEEDs the way in energy-efficient design in the public sector, with 80 percent of respondents having implemented such designs in the past year. The Northeast lags, with a mere 45 percent.


It’s now a truism that a large percentage of site selection due diligence is conducted on the Web. So which states show the most promise in interfacing with their constituents? Brown University’s sixth annual study of state and federal eGovernment performance has found Utah’s official Web site to be the best, followed by Maine, New Jersey, North Carolina and Michigan. Showing the most improvement was Mississippi, which shot up from 49th in 2004 to 9th this year. Researchers at the Taubman Center for Public Policy and American Institutions at Brown University reviewed 1,559 Web sites and evaluated them against a broad range of criteria, including availability of online services, disability and foreign language access, quality control, ease of use, privacy and security policies, and credit card payment options.


The University of Southern California’s Lusk Center for Real Estate reported two weeks ago that a third of its incoming class studying for a Master of Real Estate Development degree are women, an all-time high. reflects the growing diversity in real estate across the board," said Sonia Savoulian, the Lusk Center's director of Alumni and Student Services, says that reflects an overall growth in real estate diversity. "We have found that women graduates frequently become entrepreneurs because they want flexibility when raising their families," she said. The programs 63 graduate students hail from 11 states and two foreign countries.


 
 
 
Copyright© 2004-2010 Industrial Asset
Management Council (IAMC)
IAMC Notes IAMC Dispatch Site Selection Contact Us Member Benefits Home