Office vacancies in Pittsburgh market increase from 14.1 to 15.4 percent
Office vacancies in the Pittsburgh market increased in the three months ending March 31, despite a continuing decline in the amount of space available Downtown, according to a report.
The region's overall vacancy rate reached 15.4 percent, up from the 14.1 percent at the end of 2012, according to Newmark Grubb Knight Frank's First Quarter Office Market Trends report. It blamed the increase on subdued activity and the addition of more than 200,000 square feet of sublease space.
Sublease space is leased by an existing tenant, which has or will vacate the property, and wants to sublease the space to another tenant to reduce or meet its rental expense.
The Downtown office market improved, with its vacancy rate declining to 14.4 percent from 15.5 percent at the end of 2012.
There was a slight increase in vacancies in the tight Oakland/East End market, rising to 7.2 percent from 6.8 percent. The area with the highest vacancy rate is the eastern region with 30.8 percent, up from 26.5 percent.
A hectic pace of property sales Downtown during the fourth quarter of 2012 declined during the first quarter, the report said. Buyers rushed to take advantage of a real estate tax loophole, which ended Jan. 1.
Among the major leases Downtown during the January-March period were Leech Tishman at 525 William Penn Place; Schneider Downs at One PPG Place; and EQT Corp. adding space at EQT Plaza, 625 Liberty Ave.
Sam Spatter is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Operating loss widens at Highmark parent
- Consol Energy files for IPO of coal spin-off
- Conventional gas, oil drillers seek rules differing from shale industry in Pennsylvania
- U.S. Steel considers temporary shutdown of Minn. plant
- Stocks of Pittsburgh-area companies set record in March
- Pittsburgh region’s unemployment rate stays steady
- 6-year stock market rally still going strong, bulls say
- Home prices rise as supply still tight
- Increased credit card use reflects confidence, flat wages
- Falling demand for steel not likely to reverse any time soon
- Internet gambling results ‘disappointing’ so far