SkyscraperCity banner

61 - 80 of 19911 Posts

·
LONDON - Westminster
Joined
·
2,841 Posts
Newcastle Guy said:
You, sir, are a GOD!
Thank retail investors around the world, who are all pouring money into new real estate funds, most developers are short projects...
 

·
Tea. Earl grey. Hot.
Joined
·
3,261 Posts
This is very pleasing news indeed. Thanks JGG.
The race is now on then. Who will make it to the top? Who will be the most successful? Who will have the greater impact?

122 Leadenhall Street VS Heron Tower VS The Bishopsgate Tower

Either way, it'll be a fond 4 years from now on for us skyscraper enthusiasts.
 

·
Tea. Earl grey. Hot.
Joined
·
3,261 Posts
20 Fenchurch Street still has long to go and 88 Bishopsgate still has a long way to go too. Remember we still need to see renders of 88 Bishopsgate.

Perhaps 20 Fenchurch Street and 88 Bishopsgate will have their own race.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,295 Posts
^^ I was thinking that, I think by then there could be another biggie to join them. I almost posted about them having their own race, but then I thought it was possible 20 Fenchurch, Providing it gets permission, could start not long after the others, as it is a spec build and it also needs to demolish a building on site. Though demolition will take a bit longer as it is bigger.
 

·
Tea. Earl grey. Hot.
Joined
·
3,261 Posts
Wouldn't 20 Fenchurch Street need to be re-submitted for planning permission due to their significant changes? Surely that would add to the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,295 Posts
Yes, but they could still have demolition complete by the end of next year/early 2008, meaning they could start just half a year or so after Leadenhall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,688 Posts
DarJoLe said:
No they won't. It takes longer to build a skyscraper than it does a groundscraper, and the ones going through the planning process now will probably be ready at the same time, if not earlier. If this is the case, tenants will simply fill them up, leaving the skyscrapers empty, and making more developers wary of building towers as they will remain empty until the groundscrapers are completely filled.

If anything, this race is too little too late. If developers had been less wary two years ago we'd be halfway through this race by now, with cores on the skyline and more potential tenants considering moving into a better standard of office simply because they knew they were available.

Of course, the fact the race it seems has begun is good. I just hope it doesn't result in a massive glut in 2008/9, meaning there'll be no new proposals after this block, and maybe some of the proposals we see in 2007 fall by the wayside because of the abundance of office space.
Its not necessarily the case that tenants would've taken space in these towers if they went up 2 years ago. Remember Most city firms prefer groundscraper because they want & need large floorplates (for dealing floors etc) & these towers dont provide them.

Space will get taken eventually but its moe to do with the property cycle -If you time it right your onto a winner, regardless if its a ground or skyscraper.

I posted this link a while back but nobody seemed to have noticed it- This is published every 6mths by the corp of London & shows the office market over the last 20 years- In it you can clearly see 2003 & 2004 at the very bottom of the property cycle. As you can see 2005 construction rose sharply & now all the big developers want to get there schemes of the ground now before theres a glut of office space in 2009.

Its also worth noting that it s not just skyscrapers that get left in limbo , a lot more groundscrapers dont get built. Theres aways more schemes with planning permission than gets built (have a look at the office development pipeline graph & it shows you thats theres almost more than 1 million sq ft with planning than not built against what is actually built)

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/r...89E13/0/DP_PL_DEVELOPMENTinfodec2005final.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,782 Posts
Let me get this straight - this is 1. a race to see who can get underway to try to knock the slowest one off the list, so only 2 get built (if the office market goes the way its looking). or is it 2. a race to get built first to draw tenents so that when it is built it is not sitting there wasting money?
 

·
Futurist
Joined
·
38,257 Posts
Discussion Starter #77
Given its spectacular height, this tower doesn't actually have that much floorspace.

I was just looking on SN and comparing this with 1 Canada Square -

1 Canada Square - 1,237,860 sq ft
Bishopsgate Tower - 871,884 sq ft

It would only take a couple of moderate-sized pre-lets in order for it to go ahead. Remember - as with LBT - they probably won't need 100% to be taken.
 

·
Futurist
Joined
·
38,257 Posts
Discussion Starter #79
Fragmentor said:
Wj, how big is a moderate size pre-let?
I would've thought somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 sq ft would describe a "moderate"-sized prelet - of which there have been lots of active requirements in London recently. You've probably noticed Jef and London Lad posting about these.

Now, let's assume DIFA only require 40% to be pre-let (as has happened with LBT, and a few other schemes). If you calculate 40% of 870,000 sq ft, it works out to be less than 350,000 sq ft.

Of course, that's still a fairly large amount of floorspace - but the point I'm trying to make is that people seem to be overreacting a bit in thinking this tower will be impossible to fill, or will take several years to find tenants. I mean it's big, but not that big! :)
 
61 - 80 of 19911 Posts
Top