IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jpropr/v16y1999i3p201-218.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New business practices and the corporate property portfolio: how responsive is the UK property market?

Author

Listed:
  • Virginia A Gibson
  • Colin M Lizieri

Abstract

It has been asserted that business reorganization and new working practices are transforming the nature of demand for business space. Downsizing, delayering, business process reengineering and associated initiatives alter the amount, type and location of space required by firms. It also has implications for the contractual arrangements. Drawing from UK research, the paper demonstrates that, although new working practices are widespread, their current impact on the corporate property portfolio is muted. However, these changes have altered the way corporate property managers think about their portfolios with a clearer view of the divide between their core and peripheral property requirements. The inflexibility in UK market structures are felt to constrain the supply of a diversity of space required to meet the breadth of occupier requirements. Nevertheless there is increasing evidence that change is occurring which may have a profound impact on the market structure in the longer term.

Suggested Citation

  • Virginia A Gibson & Colin M Lizieri, 1999. "New business practices and the corporate property portfolio: how responsive is the UK property market?," Journal of Property Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 201-218, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jpropr:v:16:y:1999:i:3:p:201-218
    DOI: 10.1080/095999199368111
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/095999199368111
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/095999199368111?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Colin Lizieri & Andrew Baum & Peter Scott, 2000. "Ownership, Occupation and Risk: A View of the City of London Office Market," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 37(7), pages 1109-1129, June.
    2. Ashley Dabson & Pat McAllister, 2014. "Evolution and Change in the Serviced Office Sector: A Decade Later," Real Estate & Planning Working Papers rep-wp2014-02, Henley Business School, University of Reading.
    3. Neil Crosby & Cathy Hughes & Sandi Murdoch, 2006. "Exit Strategies for Business Tenants," Journal of Property Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 215-235, September.
    4. John Henneberry & Claire Roberts, 2008. "Calculated Inequality? Portfolio Benchmarking and Regional Office Property Investment in the UK," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 45(5-6), pages 1217-1241, May.
    5. Neil Dunse & Chris Leishman & Craig Watkins, 2002. "Testing for the Existence of Office Sub-markets: A Comparison of Evidence from Two Cities," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 39(3), pages 483-506, March.
    6. Sing Tien Foo, & Lee Kin Pang, Juvette & Wong Ah Long, 2002. "Network Effects and Broadband Connectivity in Office Building," International Real Estate Review, Global Social Science Institute, vol. 5(1), pages 146-168.
    7. Anna-Liisa Lindholm & Karen M. Gibler & Kari I. Levainen, 2006. "Modelling the Value Adding Attributes of Real Estate to the Wealth Maximization of the Firm," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 28(4), pages 445-476.
    8. Ashley Dabson & Pat McAllister, 2014. "The Role of Serviced Offices in the Corporate Real Estate Supply Chain," Real Estate & Planning Working Papers rep-wp2014-01, Henley Business School, University of Reading.
    9. Tim J. Verhoeff & Monique H. Arkesteijn & Ruud Binnekamp & Hans de Jonge, 2014. "Optimising Juridical-financial Flexibility of Corporate Real Estate," ERES eres2014_124, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    10. Colin A. Jones, 2009. "Remaking the Monopoly Board: Urban Economic Change and Property Investment," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 46(11), pages 2363-2380, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jpropr:v:16:y:1999:i:3:p:201-218. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJPR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.