Studley SERI2003 Report

SERI2003Studley Effective Rental Index

SERI2003

C O N T E N T S

Introduction 1

Effective Rents 3

Tenant Effective Rent Comparison 3

Landlord Effective Rent Comparison 5

Rental Trends 7

Rental Components 17

Components of Total Rent 17

Total Rent Comparison 19

Net Rent Comparison 21

Operating Expense Comparison 22

Real Estate Tax Comparison 23

Tenant Electricity Comparison 24

Suburban Analysis 25

Suburban Tenant & Landlord Effective Rent Comparison 25

Statistical Summary 27

IntroductionIN

TR

OD

UC

TIO

N

The Studley Effective Rental Index (SERI) remains the commercial real estate

industry’s most exhaustive study of effective rental rates for prime Class A

office properties. The SERI offers real world numbers that reflect actual

negotiated deal terms and allow for market lease concessions. Other industry

analyses typically quote asking rents based on broker listings.

In order to create a realistic depiction of the market, Studley analysts examine

recent office leases to determine the effect of factors that add to the

complexity of all transactions – concessions given to tenants and expenses

such as real estate taxes and operating expenses that are incurred by

landlords. The SERI investigates 15 bellwether central business districts and

markets: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Downtown Los

Angeles, West Los Angeles, Miami, New Jersey, Downtown New York,

Midtown New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C.

1 | S T U D L E Y E F F E C T I V E R E N T A L I N D E X 2 0 0 3

SERI2003

INT

RO

DU

CT

ION

S T U D L E Y E F F E C T I V E R E N T A L I N D E X 2 0 0 3 | 2

The SERI explores rental information in several ways:

• A statistical summary – a quick, illustrated look at vital statistics from

year-end 2002 compared with year-end 2001 data.

• Effective rental trends – individual snapshots of conditions in the selected

CBDs over the past decade.

• Effective rent comparisons – the tenant effective rent section reveals the

actual rents tenants are paying and the landlord effective rent segment

uncovers how much of that amount landlords really get to keep.

• Suburban analysis – the SERI investigates year-to-year trends in nine

selected suburban office markets.

All statistics in this year’s SERI are based on transactions as of December 2002

in existing or newly constructed Class A buildings. The data is reflective of

full-floor, 10-year leases and is defined on a per rentable square foot, per

annum basis.

Tenant Effective RentsE

FF

EC

TIV

E R

EN

TS

Tenant Effective RentComparisonIn the space of two short years, most

major U.S. markets went from near-

record tightness to near-record softness.

Reflecting this reality, tenant effective

rents continued to decline sharply in

many major markets in 2002. Only two

of our selected markets recorded

increases in tenant effective rents,

compared with four in the previous

year. San Francisco, which experienced

a 31.3% decrease in tenant effective

rents in 2001, saw an even bigger drop

in 2002, falling 45.8%. Other cities

which saw drops greater than 10% in

2002 included Atlanta, Boston, Houston,

West Los Angeles, Miami, and Midtown

Manhattan.

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10%

San Fr

ancis

co

Mid

tow

n NYC

Atlanta

Miam

i

Houston

Boston

Wes

t LA

Chicago

Downto

wn N

YC

Dallas

Denve

r

New Je

rsey

Phila

delphia

Downto

wn LA

Was

hingto

n, D.C

.

Tenant Effective Rent Comparison – Percentage Change 2002 vs. 2001

-9.7

%

5.7%

-1.2

%

-2.9

%

-7.5

%

-8.0

%

-9.5

%

-10.

7%

-11.

4%

-13.

6%

-16.

4%

-13.

0%

-45.

8%

-18.

2%

6.9%


Tenant Effective Rent Comparison

The tenant effective rent is the total rent minus

lease concessions (amortized over a 10-year period,

using a 10 percent interest rate and beginning-of-

period payments). This comparison depicts the true

cost of occupying space for tenants – as opposed

to simply reporting average landlord asking rental

rates – in each of our selected CBDs.

SERI2003

$0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

20012002

Atlanta

Dallas

Denver

Downtown LA

Houston

West LA

Chicago

Philadelphia

Miami

San Francisco

New Jersey

Downtown NYC

Boston

Washington, D.C.

Midtown NYC

Tenant Effective Rent Comparison 2002 vs. 2001

$53.72

$41.21

$40.45

$32.37

$30.64

$28.03

$26.58

$25.93

$25.83

$25.00

$24.39

$22.99

$22.73

$21.97

$21.05

EF

FE

CT

IVE

RE

NT

S


Landlord Effective RentsE

FF

EC

TIV

E R

EN

TS

Landlord Effective RentComparisonThe gap between asking and actual

rents widened further in 2002, creating

extremely attractive deals for tenants

when combined with the wide range of

concessions available. Building owners,

eager to maintain solid rent rolls, were

increasingly willing to offer enhanced

work letters, free rent, and flexible lease

terms. All of our selected markets

except for Washington, D.C. posted

decreases in landlord effective rents in

2002, compared with 11 out of 15

markets showing decreases in the

previous year. San Francisco had by far

the biggest decrease, with landlord

effective rents falling 65%. Other

markets with decreases in excess of 25%

included Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, and

Downtown and Midtown Manhattan.

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10%

San Fr

ancis

co

Chicago

Mid

tow

n NYC

Downto

wn N

YC

Atlanta

Miam

i

Houston

Boston

Wes

t LA

Dallas

Denve

r

New Je

rsey

Phila

delphia

Downto

wn LA

Was

hingto

n, D.C

.

Landlord Effective Rent Comparison – Percentage Change 2002 vs. 2001

-0.5

%

-18.

5%

-20.

2%

-26.

9%

-33.

8%

-32.

3%

4.6%

-4.9

%

-5.0

%

-11.

2%

-19.

6%

-21.

3%

-27.

8%

-65.

0%

-26.

0%5 | S T U D L E Y E F F E C T I V E R E N T A L I N D E X 2 0 0 3

Landlord Effective Rent Comparison

The landlord effective rent is calculated by taking

the total rent and subtracting operating expenses,

real estate taxes, tenant electricity, concessions, and

commissions. These numbers are derived without

consideration of landlords’ debt service obligation,

if any, since financing structures are complex and

involve far too many variables to be relevant.

SERI2003

$0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

20012002

Chicago

Dallas

Atlanta

Downtown LA

Downtown NYC

Philadelphia

Miami

West LA

San Francisco

Houston

Denver

New Jersey

Boston

Washington, D.C.

Midtown NYC

Landlord Effective Rent Comparison 2002 vs. 2001

$28.36

$23.77

$22.29

$17.63

$15.72

$13.19

$13.03

$12.65

$12.22

$12.05

$11.85

$10.09

$10.02

$9.68

$6.47

EF

FE

CT

IVE

RE

NT

S


Rental TrendsR

EN

TAL

TR

EN

DS

AtlantaThe Atlanta commercial real estate market

weakened further in 2002 as local corporations

continued to retrench. Market indicators

approached levels not seen since the early 1990s.

The region’s overall availability rate topped 24%

at the end of 2002, with Class A availability rates

at just under 26%. Landlords increased concession

packages and became more flexible on a variety

of lease negotiation issues. Total rents in Atlanta

decreased 16.5% in 2002, or $4.88 per square foot,

to $24.75.

LandlordEffective

TenantEffective

TotalRentAtlanta Rental Trends

0

5

10

15

20

25

$30

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990


LandlordEffective

TenantEffective

TotalRentBoston Rental Trends

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

$70

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

BostonIn spite of an active investment environment,

all other factors favored tenants during 2002,

including falling rental rates, negative space

absorption, increasing concessions, and continued

increases in the sublease space inventory. Only the

institutional, medical, and biotech sectors provided

strength to the market. Total rents in Boston


to $49.63.

SERI2003

RE

NTA

L T

RE

ND

S


ChicagoBy the end of 2002, Chicago saw the growth of

underlying available space that has not been

counted by marketing or listing services. At least

3.4 million square feet located downtown was not

formally marketed or posted on listing services. This

situation was driven by tenants committing to move

to new construction, which will bring 2.5 million

square feet to the market. The Class A availability

rate in Chicago jumped to 17.0% at the end of

2002. Total rents in Chicago decreased 3.8% in

2002, or $1.44 per square foot, to $36.93.

LandlordEffective

TenantEffective

TotalRentChicago Rental Trends

-10

0

10

20

30

$40

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

LandlordEffective

TenantEffective

TotalRentDallas Rental Trends

5

10

15

20

25

$30

2002200120001999

Dallas2002 was characterized by mounting levels of

available space in the Dallas/Fort Worth region.

The Dallas CBD posted a Class A availability rate of

19.6% at year-end. As a result, new construction

was held to a minimum. Although rents remained

relatively stable, concessions increased, with

landlords offering additional free rent and work.

Total rents in Dallas decreased 1.6% in 2002, or

$0.43 per square foot, to $25.67.

Rental TrendsR

EN

TAL

TR

EN

DS

DenverLandlords continued to be aggressive in Denver in

2002, offering effective rents $2 to $4 per square

foot below asking rates. Concession packages

achieved levels not seen since the early 1990s as

landlords attempted to attract and retain tenants.

Despite these incentives demand remained weak,

resulting in increased availabilities and a further

decline in rents. Although the peak of the sublease

glut was reached in early 2002, six million square

feet of sublease space remained available at the

end of the year. Total rents in Denver decreased

6.0% in 2002, or $1.72 per square foot, to $26.84.

LandlordEffective

TenantEffective

TotalRentDenver Rental Trends

10

14

18

22

26

$30

2002200120001999


LandlordEffective

TenantEffective

TotalRentHouston Rental Trends

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

$35

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

HoustonOngoing negative economic news, along with

corporate restructuring and downsizing, drove

Houston market expectations to a new low in 2002.

The overall availability rate rose 1.1 percentage

points to just under 20% by year-end. The Class A

availability rate increased to 18.9%, which

represented a six-percentage-point increase from

a year earlier. Average asking rental rates in the

region continued their downward trend. Total rents

in Houston decreased 9.4% in 2002, or $2.91 per

square foot, to $28.09.

SERI2003

RE

NTA

L T

RE

ND

S

S T U D L E Y E F F E C T I V E R E N T A L I N D E X 2 0 0 3 | 1 0

Downtown LADowntown Los Angeles was one of the few markets

to record an increase in total rents in 2002, with

total rents increasing 4.4%, or $1.24 per square

foot, to $29.65. Tenants capitalized on the city’s

tenant-favored market for the second consecutive

year by renewing existing office space and

negotiating flexible long-term leases. More tenants

elected to renew and expand at their current

locations rather than relocate in 2002, and steady

activity pushed down the Class A availability rate

to 19.1% by year-end.

LandlordEffective

TenantEffective

TotalRentDowntown LA Rental Trends

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

$35

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

LandlordEffective

TenantEffective

TotalRentWest LA Rental Trends

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

$40

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

West LASignificant Class A office space availabilities

continued to exist in West Los Angeles in 2002 as

companies strove to lower their occupancy costs

by terminating leases and reducing square footage.

There were more than eight million square feet of

available Class A office space in West Los Angeles

at year-end out of a total Class A inventory of 40

million square feet. Total rents in West Los Angeles


to $32.40.

Rental TrendsR

EN

TAL

TR

EN

DS

MiamiAfter enduring declining market conditions for

most of 2002, Miami appeared to reach a state of

equilibrium by the end of the year. While there

were indications of market strengthening, landlords

were slow to adjust to their improved bargaining

position. Tenants took advantage of this by working

with landlords to structure innovative transactions.

The biggest change in 2002 was the extent of

concessions landlords were offering, with tenants

receiving up to a year of free rent. Total rents in

Miami decreased 6.5% in 2002, or $2.25 per square

foot, to $32.50.

LandlordEffective

TenantEffective

TotalRentMiami Rental Trends

10

15

20

25

30

35

$40

2002200120001999

1 1 | S T U D L E Y E F F E C T I V E R E N T A L I N D E X 2 0 0 3

LandlordEffective

TenantEffective

TotalRentNew Jersey Rental Trends

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

$40

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993

New JerseyNew Jersey’s overall Class A availability rate

increased to 19.3% by the end of 2002. Overall

Class A rental rates fell significantly as building

owners continued to compete with numerous

sublease alternatives. The flood of sublease space

that swamped New Jersey in 2001 began to flatten

out in 2002. Just 1.5 million square feet of sublease

options were added in 2002, compared with the

4.9 million square feet added to the market in

2001. Total rents in New Jersey decreased 2.6%

in 2002, or $0.90 per square foot, to $33.60.

SERI2003

RE

NTA

L T

RE

ND

S


Downtown NYCThe focus on Lower Manhattan by government

officials continued in 2002 as both the city and state

announced major initiatives in the rebuilding at

Ground Zero. The submarket clearly stabilized, and

2002 saw remarkable progress. Overall, however,

leasing activity was not enough to offset the

downsizing and relocation that occurred

throughout the year. Class A availability rates

jumped in 2002, increasing to 17.8% at the end

of the year. Total rents in Downtown Manhattan


to $42.50.

LandlordEffective

TenantEffective

TotalRentDowntown NYC Rental Trends

0

10

20

30

40

50

$60

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

LandlordEffective

TenantEffective

TotalRentMidtown NYC Rental Trends

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

$80

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

Midtown NYCThe Midtown Manhattan office market saw

continued softening in 2002. Corporations and

many service firms, with the significant exception

of law firms, continued to shed space as the

economic downturn proved longer-lived than

expected. The increasing quantity of “shadow

space” expanded options for tenants and further

enhanced their leverage with building owners in

2002. Overall availability rates rose from 8.4% in

the first quarter to 10.2% in the fourth quarter,

an increase of over 20%. Accordingly, asking rents

decreased in every quarter. Total rents in Midtown

Manhattan decreased 14.1% in 2002, or $10.54 per

square foot, to $64.00.

Rental TrendsR

EN

TAL

TR

EN

DS

PhiladelphiaThe Philadelphia region’s office market remained

static in the fourth quarter of 2002, with an overall

availability rate of 18.2%. The strong leasing

performance posted by some Philadelphia area

submarkets may be a harbinger for 2003. These

numbers reflected more deals being closed and

less sublease space coming to market. Although

the Philadelphia region experienced rising vacancies

and minimal leasing activity in 2002, investors

poured money into local properties. Total rents in

Philadelphia increased slightly in 2002 to $31.11.

LandlordEffective

TenantEffective

TotalRentPhiladelphia Rental Trends

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

$35

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990


LandlordEffective

TenantEffective

TotalRentSan Francisco Rental Trends

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

$80

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

San FranciscoSan Francisco leasing activity rose in the latter part

of 2002, as tenants cashed in on low rents and

generous concession packages from landlords.

Asking rental rates posted their eighth consecutive

quarterly decline in the fourth quarter of the year.

Availability rates in 2002 remained at a level not

seen in more than three decades. After two years

of freefall, the San Francisco market stabilized at

about 80% occupancy in the second half of 2002.

Total rents in San Francisco decreased 38.8% in

2002, or $21.50 per square foot, to $33.95.

SERI2003

RE

NTA

L T

RE

ND

S


Washington, D.C.In 2002, Washington, D.C. continued to boast the

nation’s healthiest office market, posting a 7%

availability rate at the end of the year. Major

leasing activity was dominated by D.C.’s core

tenants – the federal government and law firms.

Large users needing more than 150,000 square feet

faced unyielding rents for the scarce number of

well-located large blocks of space. Total rents in the

District increased 6.4% in 2002, or $2.95 per square

foot, to $49.35. However, with approximately two

million square feet expected to deliver in late 2003,

landlords may become more flexible with rental

rates and concessions in the coming year.

LandlordEffective

TenantEffective

TotalRentWashington, D.C. Rental Trends

0

10

20

30

40

$50

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

Rental TrendsR

EN

TAL

TR

EN

DS

National Rental TrendsOverview – 2002The following graphs compare total rents,

tenant effective rents and landlord

effective rents for all 15 of our selected

major metropolitan markets presented

in the same scale.


Atlanta

-100

10203040506070

$80

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

Dallas

-100

10203040506070

$80

2002200120001999

Chicago

-100

10203040506070

$80

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

Houston

-100

10203040506070

$80

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

Boston

-100

10203040506070

$80

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

Denver

-100

10203040506070

$80

2002200120001999

Total Rent

Tenant Effective

Landlord Effective

SERI2003

RE

NTA

L T

RE

ND

S


Downtown LA

-100

10203040506070

$80

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

West LA

-100

10203040506070

$80

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

Miami

-100

10203040506070

$80

2002200120001999

New Jersey

-100

10203040506070

$80

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993

Downtown NYC

-100

10203040506070

$80

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

Midtown NYC

-100

10203040506070

$80

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

Philadelphia

-100

10203040506070

$80

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

San Francisco

-100

10203040506070

$80

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

Washington, D.C.

-100

10203040506070

$80

2002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

Rental ComponentsR

EN

TAL

CO

MP

ON

EN

TS

Components of Total Rent – 2002The SERI tracks the four components of total rent: net rent, operating

expenses, real estate taxes, and tenant electricity. The aggregate total rent for

each of our selected CBDs is reflected on the following page.


Components of Total Rent

The graph provides an overall picture of how much each of the rental components – net rent,

operating expenses, real estate taxes, and electricity – contributed to total rents in our 15 CBD

markets in 2002.

SERI2003

RE

NTA

L C

OM

PO

NE

NT

S


$0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ElectricityR.E. TaxesOperating Expenses

Net Rent

Washington, D.C.

San Francisco

Philadelphia

Midtown NYC

Downtown NYC

New Jersey

Miami

West LA

Downtown LA

Houston

Denver

Dallas

Chicago

Boston

Atlanta

Components of Total Rent

$24.75

$49.63

$36.93

$25.67

$26.84

$28.09

$29.65

$32.40

$32.50

$33.60

$42.50

$64.00

$31.11

$33.95

$49.35

Rental ComponentsR

EN

TAL

CO

MP

ON

EN

TS

Total Rent ComparisonTotal rents in most major markets across

the U.S. experienced declines in 2002.

Only two of our selected markets

showed modest increases, Washington,

D.C. and Downtown Los Angeles. Three

markets experienced decreases in total

rent over 10% in 2002, with San

Francisco experiencing by far the

biggest drop, falling 38.8%.


Total Rent Comparison

The total rent comparison is the sum of the net

rent, operating expenses, real estate taxes, and

tenant electricity. The numbers presented contrast

2002 with the previous year.-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10%

Was

hingto

n, D.C

.

San Fr

ancis

co

Phila

delphia

Mid

tow

n NYC

Downto

wn N

YC

New Je

rsey

Miam

i

Wes

t LA

Downto

wn LA

Houston

Denve

r

Dallas

Chicago

Boston

Atlanta

Total Rent Comparison – Percentage Change 2002 vs. 2001

-8.5

%

-9.4

%

-5.3

%

-2.9

%

-38.

8%

0.2%

-16.

5%

-3.8

%

-1.6

%

-6.0

%

4.4%

-6.5

%

-14.

1%

6.4%

-2.6

%

SERI2003

RE

NTA

L C

OM

PO

NE

NT

S


$0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

20012002

Washington, D.C.

San Francisco

Philadelphia

Midtown NYC

Downtown NYC

New Jersey

Miami

West LA

Downtown LA

Houston

Denver

Dallas

Chicago

Boston

Atlanta

Total Rent Comparison 2002 vs. 2001

$24.75

$49.63

$36.93

$25.67

$26.84

$28.09

$29.65

$32.40

$32.50

$33.60

$42.50

$64.00

$31.11

$33.95

$49.35

Rental ComponentsR

EN

TAL

CO

MP

ON

EN

TS

Net Rent ComparisonNet rent equals the gross rental cost

exclusive of the tenant’s proportionate

share of real estate taxes, operating

expenses, and tenant electricity.


$0 10 20 30 40 50 60

20012002

Washington, D.C.

San Francisco

Philadelphia

Midtown NYC

Downtown NYC

New Jersey

Miami

West LA

Downtown LA

Houston

Denver

Dallas

Chicago

Boston

Atlanta

Net Rent Comparison 2002 vs. 2001

$15.25

$33.13

$19.00

$15.00

$18.78

$18.49

$18.00

$21.42

$20.00

$23.00

$23.78

$41.41

$19.00

$20.00

$33.85

SERI2003

RE

NTA

L C

OM

PO

NE

NT

S


$0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

20012002

Washington, D.C.

San Francisco

Philadelphia

Midtown NYC

Downtown NYC

New Jersey

Miami

West LA

Downtown LA

Houston

Denver

Dallas

Chicago

Boston

Atlanta

Operating Expense Comparison 2002 vs. 2001

$5.25

$8.87

$7.90

$6.08

$5.84

$4.65

$7.75

$6.40

$8.50

$6.05

$8.38

$8.40

$7.52

$9.00

$7.25

Operating ExpenseComparisonThese numbers include heating,

ventilation and air conditioning;

maintenance; common area utilities

and electricity; cleaning; and all other

non-capital costs associated with the

operation of a building.

Rental ComponentsR

EN

TAL

CO

MP

ON

EN

TS

Real Estate Tax ComparisonReal estate taxes are determined by

using basic local real estate taxes in

each of the 15 CBD markets, exclusive

of special assessments and other one-

time charges.


$0 2 4 6 8 10 12

20012002

Washington, D.C.

San Francisco

Philadelphia

Midtown NYC

Downtown NYC

New Jersey

Miami

West LA

Downtown LA

Houston

Denver

Dallas

Chicago

Boston

Atlanta

Real Estate Tax Comparison 2002 vs. 2001

$2.75

$6.38

$8.50

$2.99

$1.33

$3.50

$2.10

$2.73

$2.50

$3.05

$7.84

$11.69

$3.09

$3.15

$6.00

SERI2003

RE

NTA

L C

OM

PO

NE

NT

S


$0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

20012002

Washington, D.C.

San Francisco

Philadelphia

Midtown NYC

Downtown NYC

New Jersey

Miami

West LA

Downtown LA

Houston

Denver

Dallas

Chicago

Boston

Atlanta

Tenant Electricity Comparison 2002 vs. 2001

$1.50

$1.25

$1.53

$1.60

$0.89

$1.45

$1.80

$1.85

$1.50

$1.50

$2.50

$2.50

$1.50

$1.80

$2.25

Tenant ElectricityComparisonTenant electricity consists of the

payment made by the tenant, whether

to the landlord or public utility, or by

the landlord, as a general building

expense, for the electrical power

consumed within the tenant’s premises,

exclusive of building HVAC.

Suburban AnalysisS

UB

UR

BA

N A

NA

LYS

IS

Suburban Tenant and LandlordEffective Rent ComparisonThe following graphs analyze tenant

effective rents and landlord effective rents

for the following suburban office markets:

Suburban Chicago (Cook County and

Lake/DuPage Counties, Ill.); Fort Lauderdale,

Fla.; metropolitan New York (Fairfield

County, Conn., and Long Island and

Westchester County, N.Y.); Orange County,

Calif.; Suburban Washington, D.C.

(Northern Virginia); and Silicon Valley, Calif.

Suburban Tenant Percentage Change

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10%

Norther

n VA

Wes

tches

ter C

ounty, N

Y

Long Is

land, N

Y

Lake

/ DuPa

ge Countie

s, IL

Cook County

, IL

Ft. L

auder

dale, F

L

Fairf

ield C

ounty, C

T

Silico

n Vall

ey, C

A

Orange C

ounty, C

A-1

5.4%

-60.

4%

-8.1

%

-17.

3%

0.4%

-9.3

%

-4.9

%

-17.

3%

-15.

0%


Suburban Landlord Percentage Change

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0%

Norther

n VA

Wes

tches

ter C

ounty, N

Y

Long Is

land, N

Y

Lake

/ DuPa

ge Countie

s, IL

Cook County

, IL

Ft. L

auder

dale, F

L

Fairf

ield C

ounty, C

T

Silico

n Vall

ey, C

A

Orange C

ounty, C

A-2

6.3%

-74.

4%

-27.

3%

-15.

0%

-10.

6%

-24.

1%

-8.7

%

-35.

9%

-21.

9%

SERI2003

Suburban Tenant Effective 2002 2001

$0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Northern VA

Westchester County, NY

Long Island, NY

Lake / DuPage Counties, IL

Cook County, IL

Ft. Lauderdale, FL

Fairfield County, CT

Silicon Valley, CA

Orange County, CA$22.63

$23.62

$31.19

$21.04

$21.06

$16.41

$28.60

$24.30

$21.30

SU

BU

RB

AN

AN

ALY

SIS


2002 2001Suburban Landlord Effective

$0 10 20 30 40 50

Northern VA

Westchester County, NY

Long Island, NY

Lake / DuPage Counties, IL

Cook County, IL

Ft. Lauderdale, FL

Fairfield County, CT

Silicon Valley, CA

Orange County, CA$11.71

$12.50

$16.84

$10.91

$6.60

$5.53

$12.62

$8.81

$11.33

Statistical SummaryS

TAT

IST

ICA

L S

UM

MA

RY

This summary depicts a two-year comparison of all rental components – net

rent, operating expenses, real estate taxes, and electricity costs – as well as

tenant concession packages. Taken together, these figures enable us to

calculate Tenant Effective Rents and Landlord Effective Rents for our 15

selected CBDs.

Sublease alternatives comprised an increasingly significant portion of

available space in 2002, much of which will convert to direct space during the

next several years. In addition, brokers reported significant quantities of

“shadow space.” Shadow space is sublease space that could be made available

under the right terms but which is not formally on the market. It is difficult to

gauge the impact of shadow space, but its presence further increased tenants’

leverage in lease negotiations, putting additional downward pressure on

effective rents.

The continuing series of shocks endured by the economy in 2002 created a

tendency toward risk-aversion among corporate leaders, slowing a nascent

recovery. Recession, terrorism, corporate fraud, and the prospect of war were

enough to make businesses question major capital investments and expansion

plans. However, optimism may grow if the national economy recovers as

anticipated in 2003.


SERI2003

STA

TIS

TIC

AL

SU

MM

AR

Y


Atlanta

Boston

Chicago

Dallas

Denver

Houston

Downtown LA

West LA

Miami

New Jersey

Downtown NYC

Midtown NYC

Philadelphia

San Francisco

Washington, D.C.

Net Operating R.E. Total Concession Landlord Tenant

Year Rent Expenses Taxes Electricity Rent Packages Effective Effective

2002 $15.25 $5.25 $2.75 $1.50 $24.75 $25.00 $10.02 $21.05

2001 20.00 5.38 2.75 1.50 29.63 30.00 13.70 25.19

2002 33.13 8.87 6.38 1.25 49.63 62.00 22.29 40.45

2001 38.34 8.44 6.21 1.25 54.25 58.00 27.93 45.67

2002 19.00 7.90 8.50 1.53 36.93 75.00 6.47 25.83

2001 21.00 7.35 8.49 1.53 38.37 66.00 9.78 28.61

2002 15.00 6.08 2.99 1.60 25.67 25.00 9.68 21.97

2001 15.75 5.85 2.90 1.60 26.10 15.00 11.88 23.88

2002 18.78 5.84 1.33 0.89 26.84 27.75 15.72 22.73

2001 20.66 5.67 1.37 0.86 28.56 27.00 17.72 24.57

2002 18.49 4.65 3.50 1.45 28.09 25.00 13.19 24.39

2001 21.50 4.50 3.50 1.50 31.00 20.00 16.77 28.04

2002 18.00 7.75 2.10 1.80 29.65 45.00 10.09 22.99

2001 18.00 6.78 1.98 1.65 28.41 45.00 10.14 21.75

2002 21.42 6.40 2.73 1.85 32.40 50.00 12.65 25.00

2001 23.40 6.42 2.68 1.70 34.20 42.00 15.72 27.99

2002 20.00 8.50 2.50 1.50 32.50 40.00 12.22 26.58

2001 22.50 8.25 2.50 1.50 34.75 27.00 16.51 30.76

2002 23.00 6.05 3.05 1.50 33.60 20.00 17.63 30.64

2001 24.00 6.00 3.00 1.50 34.50 20.00 18.57 31.54

2002 23.78 8.38 7.84 2.50 42.50 68.50 11.85 32.37

2001 26.25 8.13 6.88 2.50 43.76 54.00 16.40 35.77

2002 41.41 8.40 11.69 2.50 64.00 69.50 28.36 53.72

2001 54.00 8.13 9.91 2.50 74.54 60.00 41.88 65.66

2002 19.00 7.52 3.09 1.50 31.11 35.00 12.05 25.93

2001 19.25 7.30 3.00 1.50 31.05 32.50 12.67 26.24

2002 20.00 9.00 3.15 1.80 33.95 40.00 13.03 28.03

2001 42.00 8.50 3.15 1.80 55.45 25.00 37.25 51.75

2002 33.85 7.25 6.00 2.25 49.35 55.00 23.77 41.21

2001 32.40 6.50 5.50 2.00 46.40 53.00 22.73 38.56

Atlanta

3390 Peachtree Road N.E., Suite 850Atlanta, GA 30326 (404) 467-0707

Chicago

One E. Wacker Drive, Suite 3900 Chicago, IL 60601(312) 595-2900

Dallas

13727 Noel Road, Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75240(972) 739-2200

Denver

1050 17th St., Suite 1050 Denver, CO 80265(303) 302-5100

South Florida

200 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 343-1600

Houston

24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1105 Houston, TX 77046 (713) 522-5300

Downtown Los Angeles

777 S. Figueroa St., 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 553-3800

Los Angeles

10960 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90024 (310) 444-1000

New Jersey

333 Thornall St., 1st Floor Edison, NJ 08837(732) 906-1001

New York

300 Park Ave. New York, NY 10022(212) 326-1000

Philadelphia

1 Liberty Place1650 Market St., Suite 1525Philadelphia, PA 19103(215) 563-4000

Orange County

2 Park Plaza, Suite 1075Irvine, CA 92614(949) 660-3555

San Francisco

505 Montgomery St., Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94111(415) 421-5900

Suburban Washington, D.C.

8180 Greensboro Drive McLean, VA 22102(703) 442-9000

Washington, D.C.

555 13th St. N.W., Suite 420E Washington, D.C. 20004(202) 628-6000

A Member of Global Property Alliance

www.globalpropertyalliance.com

Julien J. Studley, Inc.Corporate Headquarters

300 Park Ave.New York, NY 10022(212) 326-1000

Entire contents copyright © 2003 Julien J. Studley, Inc.

Documents

Studley SERI2003 Report