30% of U.S. office buildings, valued at $1.1T, are obsolete

[mhays]

I imagine some neighborhoods in Hong Kong are far denser than the UES in terms of residents. They also have much smaller unit sizes. In the past I've heard numbers like 400,000 per square mile for significant areas, and they've kept growing.

As for affordable housing, I'd much rather fill the buildings. At the 50-80% level, you're talking admin assistants and waiters, and they'll spend on retail. At the 30-50% level it's more about retail workers, the elderly, and the partially employed, but they have economic value too. If it's the truly indigent at least you're getting them off the sidewalks. The first two groups are assets. The third are about managing a problem. It's better to spread their housing all over town, but it's important to do it, and do it near transit and services.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Sure, but downtown areas will never convert to 100% residential. There will always be tourists, event-goers, possibly students if a campus is nearby, people just passing through the area with a transfer on transit, etc. So even in the unlikely event that 100% of the office jobs vaporized, it still wouldn't be just ground-floor commercial with residential above.

You're right and I might be overreacting.

I still think there's a balance, and it can get too residential-oriented. I was thinking of this walking down Euclid in Cleveland on a weekday morning. Euclid looks really nice, and everything is renovated, occupied and well-kept. But it felt like a Sunday morning. It actually got busier in the evening, which isn't how CBDs typically work.

The Terminal Tower (built above what is still a central rail hub) is now residential. That doesn't seem healthy. There's a BRT line that seems completely disconnected from the Euclid corridor demographics. It's kind of a "we've given up on maintaining a traditional CBD so let's just subsidize some 20-somethings into spending a few years here".

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mhays

I imagine some neighborhoods in Hong Kong are far denser than the UES in terms of residents. They also have much smaller unit sizes. In the past I've heard numbers like 400,000 per square mile for significant areas, and they've kept growing.

You're right, and there are plenty of denser areas, especially parts of Asia. But I meant traditional developed world, where I wouldn't include HK, which has fairly high incomes, but is a vassal entity controlled by Beijing. If that's problematic, Western world + Japan & maybe Korea.

[MayDay]

The Terminal Tower is only residential on the lower 12 floors, and there are some smaller firms remaining in the tower’s upper section. The upper section is 98’ squared aka woefully inadequate for most of the modern workforce. It’s also worth mentioning that the rail hub is three floors below street level and at the bottom of the struggling Avenue shopping center, which is connected to the casino and like any other, its goal isn’t promoting external foot traffic. Just thought some details might be nice along with the pontificating.

[mrnyc]

cranky cuoz the murdoch tool chimes in promoting an approach for nyc that cleveland and others have taken --



How empty office buildings could help NYC solve its housing crisis

By Social Links for Steve Cuozzo
Published April 10, 2024

The city desperately needs more rental housing. Hundreds of obsolescent older office buildings stand near-empty. So why not use one problem to solve the other?

The way is to give landlords property-tax abatements to help pay the high costs of converting useless old offices to rental apartments.

...
Robert Schiffer, SL Green executive vice president of development said, “It would be seismic for the city’s Class B and C buildings” — meaning scores of antiquated office addresses that no longer appeal to tenants.


more:
https://nypost.com/2024/04/10/opinio...ousing-crisis/


SL Green wants to turn the mostly vacant 750 Third Ave. office building in to 543 housing units. Robert Miller

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

So, an office building in downtown St. Louis without dedicated accessory parking directly accessed via skywalks essentially has a value of zero?

There are no other public parking garages nearby that would-be users of such a building could use?


It all seems so strange to me.

How could a 38 year old 1.4M SF office tower in a major American city be worth virtually nothing?

Can't wrap my head around that.

That's the narrative we keep getting as the building continues to change hands. It sold again this year, and I doubt it was for the previous $4.1 million. The sad thing is that the tower is two to three blocks away from multiple public parking garages.

It's certainly possible there's something else going on that just hasn't been shared publicly yet.

Edit: The new sale price was $3.6 million to the Boston based Goldman Group.

Originally Posted by mhays

I'm confused by the sale price as well. But some factors come to mind, a mix of actual and guesses...

Parking is clearly a big deal, particularly in St. Louis. Yes people can walk to other parking (particularly with fewer workers around), but it would be too much for many tenants, and others would demand lower rents.

The building is on the National Register (huh!!?). That would allow tax credits, but also restrict changes. Depending on the specific components designated, they might not be able to make the entries nicer for example.

It's designed as a one-tenant building. Multi-tenant buildings typically have some work done to partition off utilities, open up common areas, etc. I have no idea what this would cost, maybe not much.

(Edited...there are sidewalk equivalents on the east and west sides of the building, as Crawford noticed.)

I suspect the building would need a substantial shell and core upgrade before leasing, beyond the stuff I mentioned. At least some quality-of-life type stuff. Figure tens of millions.

Then there's the demand issue in general. Can DTSL fill another 1.4 msf of office? Potential buyers were clearly pessimistic.

The building is too thick for efficient residential or hotel uses. It would cost too much to justify the rents it would get.

Basically any type of intensive use would cost several tens of millions even before tenant improvements, and for limited potential return.

To my recollection, the building got added to the historic registry in order for a previous developer to be able to get more incentives from the city. I don't think it should have qualified, but the guidelines got bent a bit.

Previous owners have also tried to lure a flagship tenant in order to take up a large portion of the building, but thus far have been unsuccessful. USDA apparently considered putting their new expanded office in the building, but in the end went with Metropolitan Square down the street.

Originally Posted by LAsam

Based on the articles I'm seeing, US Bank was senior lender on AT&T Tower at the $205 million valuation, foreclosed on the building in 2017, and sold to SomeraRoad for $4.1 million in 2022. Can't even imagine how much US Bank lost on this.

Apparently, there are four large vacant buildings in DTSL... 1) AT&T Tower, 2) Chemical Building, 3) Millennium Hotel, and 4) Railway Exchange Building. The following article from last October does a brief overview of each:

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...d1728d1ec.html

The AT&T building just sold again. I believe we're waiting to hear what concrete redevelopment plan the new developer has since every other plan has failed thus far. The Railway Exchange has a redevelopment plan, and I'm cautiously optimistic that more comes of that soon. The Chemical Building is up for sale again, so that's back to square one. As for the Millennium Hotel, the city has gotten tired of the owner sitting on the property and is threatening to eminent domain it.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Downtown St. Louis, just a few years ago, had a thriving shopping mall, and multiple department stores, including a major flagship. This was decades after Detroit lost its last department store. So something changed in recent years.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

More than just a few years ago.

The Macy's in downtown St. Louis (the former Famous-Barr flagship store) was first significantly downsized in 2006 when Macy's took over, and then shuttered altogether in 2013, over a decade ago now.

Always marching, time is.

Steely is correct. Downtown St. Louis did not have thriving shopping malls or departrment stores a few years ago. As he noted, Macy's closed completely in 2013. It had been formerly connected to the St. Louis Centre Mall, and that closed in 2009 or 2010. The mall at Union Station closed in the early 2010s and the property was then redeveloped again and is now home to the St. Louis Aquarium.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

Steely is correct. Downtown St. Louis did not have thriving shopping malls or departrment stores a few years ago. As he noted, Macy's closed completely in 2013. It had been formerly connected to the St. Louis Centre Mall, and that closed in 2009 or 2010. The mall at Union Station closed in the early 2010s and the property was then redeveloped again and is now home to the St. Louis Aquarium.

The previous implication was that there was something unique about St. Louis; that it couldn't be compared to other Rust Belt downtowns, supposedly bc of a uniquely decentralized nature. But St. Louis had a thriving mall and department stores decades after other Rust Belt cores had none.

St. Louis had a flagship department store until 2013. In Detroit, a much larger city, the last department store closed at the end of 1982. St. Louis also had a large shopping mall until 2009 or thereabouts. In Detroit, one was never built, despite herculean efforts.

So St. Louis had a thriving downtown core until relatively recently, when other Rust Belt cores were (relatively) dead in the water. St. Louis has been decentralized for a long time. The premise, that there's something inherent in St. Louis that prevents core vitality, something not present in Detroit or Cleveland, doesn't make sense.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But St. Louis had a thriving mall and department stores decades after other Rust Belt cores had none.

Chicago still has a Macy's (Marshall Fields) in the loop (for now anyway).

Cincinnati's downtown Macy's closed in 2018.

Milwaukee's downtown Boston Store closed in 2018.

Pittsburgh's downtown Macy's (Kauffman's) closed in 2015.

St. Louis's downtown Macy's (Famous-Narr) closed in 2013.


Cleveland and Detroit lost their last downtown department stores earlier, 2002 and 1982 respectively, but St. Louis retaining a rebranded downtown Macy's that limped along until 2013 doesn't seem too outlier-ish in the rustbelt.

If anything, Detroit was the outlier, being WAY out in front of the curve by decades.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Chicago still has a Macy's (Marshall Fields) in the loop (for now anyway).

Cincinnati's downtown Macy's closed in 2018.

Milwaukee's downtown Boston Store closed in 2018.

Pittsburgh's downtown Macy's (Kauffman's) closed in 2015.

St. Louis's downtown Macy's (Famous-Narr) closed in 2013.


Cleveland and Detroit lost their last downtown department stores earlier, 2002 and 1982 respectively, but St. Louis retaining a rebranded downtown Macy's that limped along until 2013 doesn't seem too outlier-ish in the rustbelt.

If anything, Detroit was the outlier, being WAY out in front of the curve by decades.

Macy's has announced that it is closing its last store in San Francisco, on Union Square downtown.

The Macy's stores in downtown Los Angeles and downtown Sacramento have not been targeted for closure--yet.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The previous implication was that there was something unique about St. Louis; that it couldn't be compared to other Rust Belt downtowns, supposedly bc of a uniquely decentralized nature. But St. Louis had a thriving mall and department stores decades after other Rust Belt cores had none.

St. Louis had a flagship department store until 2013. In Detroit, a much larger city, the last department store closed at the end of 1982. St. Louis also had a large shopping mall until 2009 or thereabouts. In Detroit, one was never built, despite herculean efforts.

So St. Louis had a thriving downtown core until relatively recently, when other Rust Belt cores were (relatively) dead in the water. St. Louis has been decentralized for a long time. The premise, that there's something inherent in St. Louis that prevents core vitality, something not present in Detroit or Cleveland, doesn't make sense.

St. Louis' two downtown shopping malls opened in 1985, but both were already struggling 10 to 15 years later as shoppers moved on to places like the newly rebuilt St. Louis Galleria and the also newly rebuilt West County Center. They were by no means thriving in the 00s.

As for downtown St. Louis in the 1980s and 90s, St. Louis hadn't fully been put through the mergers and acquisitions ringer yet, and Clayton wasn't yet poaching businesses to the level that it is now. The Central West End was also in the process of pulling itself back together vs being completely gentrified like it is today.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Chicago still has a Macy's (Marshall Fields) in the loop (for now anyway).

Cincinnati's downtown Macy's closed in 2018.

Milwaukee's downtown Boston Store closed in 2018.

Pittsburgh's downtown Macy's (Kauffman's) closed in 2015.

St. Louis's downtown Macy's (Famous-Narr) closed in 2013.


Cleveland and Detroit lost their last downtown department stores earlier, 2002 and 1982 respectively, but St. Louis retaining a rebranded downtown Macy's that limped along until 2013 doesn't seem too outlier-ish in the rustbelt.

If anything, Detroit was the outlier, being WAY out in front of the curve by decades.

Agreed.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Chicago still has a Macy's (Marshall Fields) in the loop (for now anyway).

Cincinnati's downtown Macy's closed in 2018.

Milwaukee's downtown Boston Store closed in 2018.

Pittsburgh's downtown Macy's (Kauffman's) closed in 2015.

St. Louis's downtown Macy's (Famous-Narr) closed in 2013.


Cleveland and Detroit lost their last downtown department stores earlier, 2002 and 1982 respectively, but St. Louis retaining a rebranded downtown Macy's that limped along until 2013 doesn't seem too outlier-ish in the rustbelt.

If anything, Detroit was the outlier, being WAY out in front of the curve by decades.

Cincinnati also had a Saks downtown until very recently-- like 2020 or 2021. It had a pretty thriving downtown mall called Tower Place that had skyway connections to both Macy's and Saks, as well as a TJ Maxx, until the early 2010s. Now, the mall has been converted to a parking garage, Macy's just underwent conversion to office with retail/restaurants on the first floor, TJ Maxx closed and is vacant, and Saks is also currently vacant, though there are plans underway to convert it to office/retail ala Macy's. Downtown Cincinnati also had a Tiffany's and Brooks Brothers until the 2010s, too. I think a lot of these closures are due to macro trends in retail. Certainly Macy's is struggling everywhere. Tiffany's and Brooks Brothers moved to the suburbs, and Saks just left the market entirely. Almost all of the stores in Tower Place had other locations in the city or suburbs.

You could see these closures as evidence that Downtown Cincinnati has substantially declined in the past 10 years or so, but I don't know if that's really the case. Yes, chain retail has cratered, but there are more restaurants, hotels, and residents now. There are lots of retail outlets that have opened in OTR, too. Mostly local boutiques, but also some national brands like Warby Parker. I can't really think of any recent large office departures from downtown, and on my last visit, downtown seemed to be in pretty decent shape. It is sad to think of how much much retail has been lost in a quick amount of time, though.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Chicago still has a Macy's (Marshall Fields) in the loop (for now anyway).

Cincinnati's downtown Macy's closed in 2018.

Milwaukee's downtown Boston Store closed in 2018.

Pittsburgh's downtown Macy's (Kauffman's) closed in 2015.

St. Louis's downtown Macy's (Famous-Narr) closed in 2013.


Cleveland and Detroit lost their last downtown department stores earlier, 2002 and 1982 respectively, but St. Louis retaining a rebranded downtown Macy's that limped along until 2013 doesn't seem too outlier-ish in the rustbelt.

If anything, Detroit was the outlier, being WAY out in front of the curve by decades.

Buffalo held on 13 years longer than Detroit
AM&A's - 1867-1994.
Sold to The Bon Ton which shuttered the downtown Main St. store in 1995.
Opening of the c.1989 super regional mall ~1.6 Million sq ft Walden Galleria was the death knell for downtown Buffalo retail. And that mall is now outliving every other mall in Western NY.

1960s photo

[meh]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I have to give credit to Detroit leadership. While the city is still super-troubled, and the most decayed of any major city, core Detroit sounds like Manhattan or Paris compared to core STL. Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc. have vastly healthier cores now.

This is pretty hyperbolic. What are you calling "core"? Because, again, the study on which that article based it's entire argument didn't even consider the entirety of downtown—much less the "core"—and the author cherry-picked his data. I would say that St. Louis city outside of downtown is doing as well as Cleveland and considerably better than Detroit, and that's reflected in the median home prices that Emprise du Lion mentioned.

Originally Posted by Crawford

The previous implication was that there was something unique about St. Louis; that it couldn't be compared to other Rust Belt downtowns, supposedly bc of a uniquely decentralized nature. But St. Louis had a thriving mall and department stores decades after other Rust Belt cores had none.

St. Louis had a flagship department store until 2013. In Detroit, a much larger city, the last department store closed at the end of 1982. St. Louis also had a large shopping mall until 2009 or thereabouts. In Detroit, one was never built, despite herculean efforts.

So St. Louis had a thriving downtown core until relatively recently, when other Rust Belt cores were (relatively) dead in the water. St. Louis has been decentralized for a long time. The premise, that there's something inherent in St. Louis that prevents core vitality, something not present in Detroit or Cleveland, doesn't make sense.

St. Louis had a thriving downtown core until recently? Are you kidding? As others have pointed out, this is nonsense. No offense. And yes, St. Louis' circumstances are somewhat unique: the Great Divorce, the level of municipal fragmentation, an extremely red and adversarial state government (e.g. Missouri provides significantly less public transit funding than Ohio, Michigan, and NY), the existence of a second downtown in close proximity to DT STL as discussed below, etc.

Originally Posted by Crawford

While true, not sure of the relevance. This is a very common typology in the U.S., shared by Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City and many others. The cores are historically relatively small, and business centers, cultural venues, universities and wealth centers were frequently dispersed, often along a linear spine, especially with the advent of the auto age.

It's not that simple. St. Louis has the comparable spine with business centers, cultural venues, universities and wealth centers within a relatively small boundary, but none of those other cities has an entire second downtown—the size of a small city's at a distance that would be inside their city limits—siphoning corporate jobs from their primary DT business districts. For instance, take a look at the graphic below: St. Louis and Cleveland at the same scale. Cleveland has a less uniform shape, so I rotated it for comparison. Notice that Downtown Clayton (left highlighted circle) falls within Cleveland City limits. Additionally, note that the Central West End is closer to DT STL than University Circle is to DT Cleveland (right highlighted circles). Cleveland is about 20 sq mi larger than St. Louis. Buffalo is about 10 sq mi smaller. Detroit and KC city limits aren't even comparable.



Click here to magnify the image: https://postimg.cc/9RP5Hr85

[eschaton]

Pittsburgh is one of those rust belt cities which effectively has a second downtown - Oakland. There was an explicit effort by city leaders to turn it into the "new downtown" from 1900 to 1910 or so, largely due to concerns about downtown proper being congested and polluted.

The move was largely a failure, insofar as it didn't result in office jobs leaving downtown. However, it did result in major cultural venues (the central public library, the major museums) relocating for good. Most notable, however, was that University of Pittsburgh moved to Oakland, which made all the difference in the longer run. This, in conjunction with the growth of the Carnegie Institute of Technology (which eventually became CMU), along eventually the smaller Catholic women's university of Carlow, made it the big higher education hub in the city (with both Chatham and Duquense only about a neighborhood away). Add to this being the eventual home of three hospitals (downtown has none) and it became the eds/meds locale of the city.

Up until recently, Downtown had roughly 100,000 jobs, and Oakland roughly 50,000. But Downtown shed a ton of in-person work during the pandemic, while Oakland continues to add new employment. I wonder how much longer it may be before Oakland is the bigger job concentration.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Chicago still has a Macy's (Marshall Fields) in the loop (for now anyway).

Cincinnati's downtown Macy's closed in 2018.

Milwaukee's downtown Boston Store closed in 2018.

Pittsburgh's downtown Macy's (Kauffman's) closed in 2015.

St. Louis's downtown Macy's (Famous-Narr) closed in 2013.


Cleveland and Detroit lost their last downtown department stores earlier, 2002 and 1982 respectively, but St. Louis retaining a rebranded downtown Macy's that limped along until 2013 doesn't seem too outlier-ish in the rustbelt.

If anything, Detroit was the outlier, being WAY out in front of the curve by decades.

Macy's also closed their downtown Miami store in 2018 (formerly Burdines).

The last urban location in Florida is the South Beach location:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/KXqukpCnoMMcjy7N8

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by meh

This is pretty hyperbolic. What are you calling "core"? Because, again, the study on which that article based it's entire argument didn't even consider the entirety of downtown—much less the "core"—and the author cherry-picked his data. I would say that St. Louis city outside of downtown is doing as well as Cleveland and considerably better than Detroit, and that's reflected in the median home prices that Emprise du Lion mentioned.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here, unless you're redefining downtown St. Louis to be basically the entire city of St. Louis. The median housing price in St. Louis doesn't have anything to do with the relative health of the core.

Originally Posted by meh

St. Louis had a thriving downtown core until recently? Are you kidding? As others have pointed out, this is nonsense. No offense. And yes, St. Louis' circumstances are somewhat unique: the Great Divorce, the level of municipal fragmentation, an extremely red and adversarial state government (e.g. Missouri provides significantly less public transit funding than Ohio, Michigan, and NY), the existence of a second downtown in close proximity to DT STL as discussed below, etc.

I don't know what this means either. It's undeniable that Downtown St. Louis, in modern times, had at least similar amenities as other Midwest/Rust Belt downtown cores. It had department stores, shopping malls, luxury hotels, etc., so there's nothing inherently precluding downtown vitality. If you want to argue over "recently" and "thriving", fine, but irrelevant. It wasn't different than others, and it wasn't a long time ago.

Originally Posted by meh

It's not that simple. St. Louis has the comparable spine with business centers, cultural venues, universities and wealth centers within a relatively small boundary, but none of those other cities has an entire second downtown—the size of a small city's at a distance that would be inside their city limits—siphoning corporate jobs from their primary DT business districts.

Disagree. I see nothing indicating that St. Louis, as a region, is less centralized than Detroit, KC, Cleveland, etc., nor do I see some inherent limitation not present in these other cities. I'd argue that even today, St. Louis is more centralized than KC, which is like a prairie LA. Detroit has a tiny share of regional jobs downtown and most downtown-adjacent areas are still pretty empty. Cleveland's East Side medical/cultural/educational neighborhoods are quite analogous to Clayton/CWE, etc. Cleveland Clinic is a beast, the art museum & symphony are world-class, you have a research university, Rockefeller parks, almost all the upscale shopping and neighborhoods, etc.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Pittsburgh is one of those rust belt cities which effectively has a second downtown - Oakland. There was an explicit effort by city leaders to turn it into the "new downtown" from 1900 to 1910 or so, largely due to concerns about downtown proper being congested and polluted.

The move was largely a failure, insofar as it didn't result in office jobs leaving downtown. However, it did result in major cultural venues (the central public library, the major museums) relocating for good. Most notable, however, was that University of Pittsburgh moved to Oakland, which made all the difference in the longer run. T

Right, these kinds of secondary cores were quite common in the older interior cities. They appeared to be top-down promotions, intended to relieve core congestion. Sort of a new model compared to Europe or the Eastern seaboard. It's very common to have the main library, the main art museum, the flagship university and the big medical campus, in some in-town but not core-adjacent geography, usually next to the most affluent households.

I've seen pictures of the main branch of the Detroit Public Library going up in the 1920's. It was surrounded by mansions on leafy lots. Even then, long before urban blight & white flight, the elites wanted to get out of town.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Chicago still has a Macy's (Marshall Fields) in the loop (for now anyway).

Cincinnati's downtown Macy's closed in 2018.

Milwaukee's downtown Boston Store closed in 2018.

Pittsburgh's downtown Macy's (Kauffman's) closed in 2015.

St. Louis's downtown Macy's (Famous-Narr) closed in 2013.


Cleveland and Detroit lost their last downtown department stores earlier, 2002 and 1982 respectively, but St. Louis retaining a rebranded downtown Macy's that limped along until 2013 doesn't seem too outlier-ish in the rustbelt.

If anything, Detroit was the outlier, being WAY out in front of the curve by decades.

Chicago doesn't have a Rust Belt core.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Right, these kinds of secondary cores were quite common in the older interior cities. They appeared to be top-down promotions, intended to relieve core congestion. Sort of a new model compared to Europe or the Eastern seaboard. It's very common to have the main library, the main art museum, the flagship university and the big medical campus, in some in-town but not core-adjacent geography, usually next to the most affluent households.

For whatever reason, Chicago never developed a true secondary eds/meds/culture node.

Sure, we got universities and hospitals sprinkled across various neighborhoods, but that's just it, they're "sprinkled" about, not coalesced into a single secondary node that rivals downtown.

And all of the most significant high culture stuff (art museum, main library, major theaters, symphony, ballet, opera, etc.) all stayed in the loop, where such things can be most easily accessed by the greatest number of Chicagoans due to the ridiculously hub n' spoke set up of the L and Metra.



Anyway, back to St. Louis, I think the piece you may be missing here is specifically about major commercial office development in secondary urban nodes.

Yeah, many cities have significant eds/meds/culture centers in secondary urban nodes, but Clayton is a bit different in that it also brings significant office development into the equation too.

Consider this: downtown St. Louis has not seen the construction of a significant class A office building (10+ floors) for over three decades!!

Meanwhile, roughly half a dozen such buildings have been built in downtown Clayton so far this century.

Clayton seems to be a leech on downtown St. Louis to a much greater degree than most of the other eds & meds secondary nodes being talked about here.

[mhays]

DTSL and Clayton put together are still a pretty small percentage of the metro office market per numbers I looked up a while back. Even the entire combined central corridor wasn't that high. It's a very suburbanized office market.