Why do commercial spaces sit vacant? (2025)

Post by GJim » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 10:10 AM UTC

Schiendelman wrote: post #50

GJim wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup.... And the downside is loads of reasonably successful decent small shops in the UK now have to close after 12-24 months when the rents get jacked-up from sensible to astronomical levels. None of them become permeant tenants unless they are a front for money laundering (hence the explosion of nail bars and barbers on the UK high street) or illegal goods (dodgy vape shops). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqj1…

Anything over 30 days is likely not to be a pop-up shop. There's no way to give a tenant 12+ months without triggering the foreclosure clauses, AFAIK.

Post by Schiendelman » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 10:11 AM UTC

grebc wrote: post #3

Schiendelman wrote: post #2

I actually think there's a business to be had here. As described, the landlord can't offer a traditional lease for the actual value of the space. However, the landlord could offer essentially day rentals without creating a lease. There are systems for this already, such as Peerspace and their ilk, which I've used for small events. I believe these don't trigger the foreclosure clauses. I think that a property manageme…

I own a commercial property, I wouldn’t want to have day to day rentals. I don’t enjoy dealing with property management or the fees they charge.

Post by NoboruWataya » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 10:15 AM UTC

alper wrote: post #34

jwarden wrote: post #12

This explanation seems very implausible to me. By lowering the rent by X%, and therefore reducing annual revenue by X%, you admit the building is worth X% less. But by leaving the building X% vacant, also reducing the annual income stream by X%, you and the bank can somehow pretend the building is worth what it would be if full? I doubt owners and banks actually believe this. Is there some policy that forces this?

The whole goal is not to write off the value of the property which you have to do if you rent it for less money than initially planned. That's not that difficult to understand is it?

Post by Anon4Now » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 10:21 AM UTC

Ekaros wrote: post #37

Anon4Now wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the property is devalued, the property taxes lower accordingly. Portland, Oregon has been facing this problem recently. The devaluations caused the tax revenues for the city to drop, which in turn has caused budget issues. For example, "Big Pink" is an office tower in downtown Portland. It's last sale was for about $370 million. Out of desperation in a saturated market, the owners sold it last year for about $45 m…

As citizen I might prefer downturn of values. At least in medium term. Yes there is lot less tax income. But on other hand lowering values would mean lower rents which would mean lower overheads and potentially cheaper prices or more business being viable.

Post by Anon4Now » Wed, Jun 17, 2026, 10:23 AM UTC

nairboon wrote: post #28

Anon4Now wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the property is devalued, the property taxes lower accordingly. Portland, Oregon has been facing this problem recently. The devaluations caused the tax revenues for the city to drop, which in turn has caused budget issues. For example, "Big Pink" is an office tower in downtown Portland. It's last sale was for about $370 million. Out of desperation in a saturated market, the owners sold it last year for about $45 m…

Adding taxes in a downturn obviously adds additional friction. One might ask, what happened to the tax revenue of that $370M transaction, where is it now when the city needs it.