Some office buildings are in perfect physical condition and still nearly worthless. That is not a contradiction. That is functional obsolescence.
Here is the definition. Functional obsolescence is when a building no longer functions the way the market needs it to, even when there is nothing physically wrong with it.
It is different from physical deterioration. Physical deterioration is a worn-out roof, a failing HVAC system, cracked paving. You fix it with a check. Functional obsolescence is harder, because the building can be pristine and still be obsolete. The world moved. The building did not.
Office is the clearest example happening in real time.
A lot of the office stock built between 1980 and 2005 was designed for a way of working that no longer exists. Deep interior floor plates built for rows of cubicles, with workers far from any window. Low ceilings. HVAC sized for a different density. Parking ratios set for five-day-a-week occupancy. Single-tenant lobbies and elevator banks that do not fit how hybrid teams actually use space now.
None of that is broken. All of it is obsolete.
And here is the part investors miss: some functional obsolescence is curable and some is not. You can modernize a lobby. You usually cannot move a structural column, raise a ceiling, or fix a floor plate that is fundamentally too deep. When the obsolescence is incurable, the value is not in the building anymore. It is in the land underneath it.
This is exactly why we treated a class C office building my family owned in Santa Clara as a covered land play. The office was functionally obsolete. The land was not. We cash flowed it while we entitled it, and now we are building 328 units of multifamily on the site.
When you evaluate any building, ask two questions. Is it physically sound?And does it still do the job the market is paying for? Those are not the same question.
What functionally obsolete building in your market are you watching, and do you think it gets renovated or torn down?
Discussion about this post
No posts
