So here’s a tricky balancing act…
…and (yet) another reason why having a positive, proactive, tackling #highstreet vacancy-focused ‘place partnership’ can be a huge help in reducing empty unit numbers and importantly too, improving the mix of use types your town or city centre has.
The thought was sparked by seeing a commercial agent posting enthusiastically that they’d let a unit having had a number of offers and reached agreement with the successful occupant for more than the advertised rent.
From the agent perspective that’s a deal done. Fee earned. The landlord has a new tenant and a rent income above what they’d planned. All good. And the place has one fewer vacant unit.
So why the question…?
You might read what follows and think I’m asking too much, but here goes anyways…
How was the winner chosen. Purely on highest rent offer or was some account taken of what might suit the place best;
Who is the occupier. If presented with the full list of use types, might its residents and existing businesses have chosen differently;
It’s been settled for an increased rent which because of the way the system works might have a knock-on effect on existing businesses at lease renewal;
And what happened to the other interested parties. Is someone picking those up and trying to match them to the remaining empty units in that town or city centre…?
I’ve not said where this case occurred and haven’t asked any of those questions. It may well be the letting will be a great add to its mix.
My point is that having a ‘place partnership’ with agents, landlords, businesses, community, cultural organisations, council(s), chamber and BID if you have one working together on this might give you an outcome that better suits the place, its residents and existing businesses with bigger picture and / or longer term benefits for the agent or landlord too.
As I’m writing I can hear #property sector colleagues disagreeing, but it feels right to have the debate…
