Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 22

Delivering Mixed Use

Delivering Mixed-Use


Delivering Mixed-Use Buildings

Over the last decade mixed-use development has become an
important and much discussed topic in the property world. However, it
is not a new concept. Mixed-use development was the norm for much
of the beginning of the 20th Century. The trend away from mixing
uses originated during the industrial revolution, when residential uses
were pushed to the outskirts of the cities.

Transport improvements have allowed people to travel and commute

further distances and consequently live in less urbanised areas.
However, since the 1960s there has been increasing criticism of this
segregation of uses and particular concern about the degradation of
urban areas and communities. The UK Government is now
committed to a programme of urban regeneration aimed at trying to
bring people and business back to city centres – as a result mixed-use
is once again high on the agenda.

The market sentiment towards mixed-use development is generally one

of cautiousness, particularly when considering its deliverability. There
is perceived to be a lack of financial evidence demonstrating the
viability of a mixed-use approach. Mixed–use is not analysed and
benchmarked as a separate use class by the Investment Property
Databank (IPD), which exacerbates the difficulties experienced when
attempting to compare financial performance between uses and

Traditionally major property developers in the UK have specialised in

one sector. Similarly financing and investment institutions have usually
allocated their funds on a conventional basis and therefore have
historically preferred single-use developments. However, a number of
property companies have recognised the legislative demand shift
towards mixed-use schemes and the diversification benefits achievable
by combining uses operating in different market cycles. They have
consequently attempted to re-align themselves in the market to take
advantage of the apparent growth in this sector.

There has also been a recent shift towards more central locations. The
likelihood however is that only small sites will become available in city
centres. Where planning policy promotes mixed-use development, and
where it may allow for high rise buildings, then higher densities may
be achieved as a trade-off for the complexities introduced when
undertaking mixed-use development. Increasing a site’s density may
therefore be the only means of addressing the aspirations of
mixed-use where land is in short supply and where ultimately its
viability will determine whether it ever materialises.

2 m

We have examined the issues and this paper highlights our research
findings, which will be available in detail on request of the main

Mixed-use is a term used to describe multi-functional space, be it a

What is mixed-use? mixture of buildings of different uses within a development or a mix of
uses in a single building. Although a building is mixed-use if it has two
uses, many developments fall within this category, so for the purpose
of this research we focus on buildings with three or more uses. In
addition, we distinguish between mixed-use building and mixed-use

Mixed-use buildings contain a combination of uses within one

building, for example office, residential or retail. The Shard is an
example of a proposed mixed-use building, set within a mixed-use
Project Specifications: The Shard

Location London Bridge Station, London

The Project An 80-storey building with a footprint of

circa 0.75 acres comprising 14 storeys
of apartments, 580,000 sq ft of offices
on 27 floors, an 18 storey hotel, public
spaces, restaurants and bars.

Completion 2009-2010

Infrastructure Located on a major transportation hub

in London.

In contrast a mixed-use scheme contains mostly single-use

buildings which are in close proximity or on the same master planned
project site. Battersea Power Station is a mixed-use scheme.

m 3

Project Specifications: Battersea Power Station

Location Battersea, London

The Project Mixed-use scheme on a 38 acre site

with major entertainment, leisure, office,
residential and transport components.
The scheme has secured Planning

Completion 2009-2010

Infrastructure Brownfield regeneration with major

transportation links.

With planning encouraging, or in some areas even prescribing

mixed-use development, mixed-use buildings will be an important issue
for developers over the coming years. Since an increasing number of
large brownfield sites are being redeveloped with mixed-use schemes,
the focus will shift to smaller sites and by virtue of lack of space,
mixed-use buildings. As a result, despite being the less common form
of mixed-use development, we have chosen to focus on mixed-use

4 m

The UK planning regime generally encourages mixed-use development.

The Planning Mixed-use schemes are said to promote sustainability, vitality, local
Regime employment and to reduce the need to travel. Therefore, the
Government sees mixed-use schemes as a critical component in the
achievement of successful urban regeneration. They want to counter
the impact of suburbanisation and address the pressing need for more
residential housing.

Mixed-use development is also seen as an important tool in reducing

the need to travel. The creation of more mixed-use developments
aims to attract residents back into the city, which would decrease
commuting. As a result mixed-use is principally encouraged near
transport hubs such as bus and train stations in city centre locations.

The Government’s attitude towards mixed-use development is reflected

in national planning policy. This is filtered down via regional and local
policy. Local approaches to mixed-use vary quite significantly, which
can be confusing. Even within London, which has a statutory plan
encouraging mixed-use, individual boroughs have quite polarised
views. For example, the Borough of Westminster has a very strict
mixed-use policy, which requires additional residential space for all
increases in commercial space. Southwark on the other hand is more
likely to grant single-use commercial schemes without a residential
component to create employment space in the Borough.

Although planning policies promote mixed-use areas, on-site and

design complexities have discouraged the construction of mixed-use
buildings. Challenges include:

 Conflicting uses and activities within a building, for example pubs

and nightclubs have implications for the residential element of a

 Issues with site configuration and design. The provision of

individual accesses for each use is generally essential but can
significantly reduce the amount of useable space at ground floor

 Building regulations can place onerous conditions on mixed-use

development schemes and can have implications for the tenure
and mix provided on site.

 Typically smaller residential units are more appropriate to create

greater density and sales values but planning authorities may seek
a higher proportion of larger units.

m 5

 In order to make a mix viable, it may be necessary to increase the

overall quantum of development on site. By increasing the building
mass property values can be maximised.

 Issues such as bin storage, noise, hours of use and time of

deliveries all need to be carefully considered to avoid a negative
impact on the residential component.

 The Section 106 agreement associated with mixed-use

development can be highly complex.

These challenges mean that major mixed-use buildings or towers are

The Evolution of still very rare in the UK. Most mixed-use developments have been
Mixed-Use Buildings mixed schemes (incorporating a number of single-use buildings),
which avoid some of the specific challenges mixed-use buildings face.
Of those that are mixed-use buildings, several are the result of
conversions. Examples include the Mailbox in Birmingham and the
Oxo Tower in London.

Mixed-use buildings are more common in other countries, but are still
rare in comparison with mixed-use schemes. Mostly they are located
in the centre of major cities, where high land prices naturally favour
dense mixed-use development. Examples include the John Hancock
Tower in Chicago, the Trump Tower, and One Beacon Court in
New York.

In Asia, a very distinct form of mixed-use development has evolved

with “Integrated Multi-Tower Structures”. These involve individual
buildings being connected by a common structure such as an atrium.
These developments are a mix between a mixed-use scheme and
mixed-used buildings. An example, is the Jin Mao Tower in Shanghai.
The unwillingness to combine residential and office uses in buildings is
common in Asia.

6 m

Across Europe mixed-use development has become more prominent

although, similar to the UK and Asia, mixed-use buildings with
residential use are very rare. Indeed the Torre de Madrid, built in
1957, is one of few major mixed-use buildings developed in Europe
with residential space. Another example is the Q 205 in Berlin
which was completed in the 1990s and includes retail, offices and

Although major mixed-use buildings are rare, there are an increasing

The Supply Pipeline number in the pipeline. For example, a recent survey, in Forbes
Magazine on the world’s largest buildings, states that high mixed-use
towers are becoming more common. An example for this is the Burj
Dubai Tower. It is currently the tallest building under construction in the
world. The building will consist of a hotel, office space and residential

Planning attitudes and developer capabilities in the UK are also slowly

changing. Despite this we can only identify five major mixed-use
buildings that are currently in the development pipeline and will
contain at least three uses. These are listed in the Table below. Given
the complexities of these schemes the detail may be subject to change:

Name City Developer Size, scale ,mix Project status Location Iconic
Quarry Hill Leeds Vinci Circa 1 acre site. Mixed-use Proposal for major Close to city No
building, 62 residential units, mixed-use centre and
250 room hotel, 60,000 sq ft train station
office space and casino, bar,

Grand Central Liverpool Chieftain Sub 1 acre site. 32-storey Planning appeal City centre, Yes
Lime Street mixed-use tower, apartments, set for April 06 adjacent to
hotel and ground floor retail. train station

Project X Liverpool Vermont Sub 1 acre site. 22 storeys, Planning Waterfront – n/a
Developments 400 units residential 140 hotel application 1 mile city
rooms, retail, offices. centre

Queens Retail Preston Brookhouse Group 106-bedroom hotel, Outline planning Close to city Yes
Park Tower 20,000 sq ft of offices and application centre
65 flats.

Sheffield Tower Sheffield n/a Circa 0.5 acre site. Around Outline planning Close to city Yes
100,000 sq ft of offices over 28 application centre
storeys, with 61 apartments on submitted.
the upper floors and ground-
level shops.

m 7

The pipeline schemes that have been identified have some common
characteristics, such as:

 Positioned in central locations

 good transport connections
 usually ‘iconic’ in terms of architecture and their influence on
the cityscape

These criteria are reflected in the examples throughout our analysis and
we feel are the pre-requisite of a successful mixed-use building. As the
Matrix in Table 2 shows, The Shard is an example that “ticks all the
boxes”. It is built in a central location, on top of a major transportation
node with substantial density, it has a unique design and will be a
landmark in the London Skyline.

Name Central Good connections Iconic building High value Small scale site
location transport location
Shard London Bridge     
Bridgewater Place    
Quarry Hill    
Grand Central Lime Street     
Project X   n/a  
Queens Retail Park Tower  
Sheffield Tower     
John Hancock Tower    
One Beacon Court    
Time Warner Center    
Jin Mao Tower    
Burj Dubai    
Q 205   

With planning policy promoting mixed-use, and with demand for

central locations, there is an argument for permitting greater
densities if developments provide mixed-use buildings that address
these demands.

We have therefore looked at the viability of such anticipated

mixed-used buildings, aiming to determine what would need to occur
to push the viability beyond that of a single-use building. We have
appraised two hypothetical sites of 1.5 acres - London (Euston) and
central Birmingham. It has been assumed that both are located close
to major transport nodes.

8 m

We have appraised two scenarios for each site:

Financial &
Design Analysis Scenario One:
A 6-storey office development including basement plant and car
parking - 145,000 sq ft of net internal area with 100 parking

Scenario Two:
A 20-storey mixed-use building incorporating ground floor retail,
six floors of offices, a plant floor, twelve stories of residential units
and basement parking - c.20,000 sq ft NIA of retail space,
together with approximately 145,000 sq ft NIA of office space,
130 parking spaces, and 184 residential units (c.137,500 sq ft

We provide full details of this and the rest of our assumptions in our
main Report. In determining our appraisals, we have considered the
current conditions of the respective sectors and locations, with
guidance on residential elements provided by CBRE Hamptons

Sheppard Robson has worked with CBRE and ARUP to produce a

The Design prototype mixed-use building which sets out the design and cost
principles, informing some of the key assumptions of the Scenario 2
appraisals. Please refer to the design drawings and images included.

Arrangement The office floor plates are deeper than usual to allow for greater
flexibility of use, within the limits of the lateral 7.5m grid. The building
is configured as two 18m wide parallel blocks separated by an atrium
12m wide.

The residential blocks are 15m wide with 1.5m balconies on either
side, the hub being planned around a central corridor. In designing
the residential floor plate we have adopted a grid which can provide
a range of sizes of units from studio to three beds. It does however
equally lend itself to commercial use.

Each use has independent entrances and exits.

m 9

Cross-Stepped Residential

Compact Residential for High Density Sites

Twisted Residential to Maximised Light

Triple Wing Residential

10 m

Cores The key to mixing the uses within the building is the configuration of
the cores which avoid duplicating staircase and lift provision. Office
lifts are located within the atrium, and the cores for the residential are
located at either end of the atrium.

Residential lifts would be of high specification to allow for swifter

movement within the tall structures, and would encompass both a fire
fighting lift and a goods lift.

The office floor plate “gross to net ratio” is affected by the residential
cores passing through, and with a proportion of the 8th floor plant
room included in the calculation of net areas, the office element has
a gross to net ratio of approximately 81%. The gross to net of the
residential is largely dictated by the maximum corridor length. For the
purpose of this study an 85% ratio as been used.

Structure High density residential lends itself to concrete construction particularly

to control sound transmission. A 7.5m x 9m grid whilst quite dense
can be arranged to suit offices. It suits car parking and offers a flexible
grid to a residential development. A transfer structure has been
avoided too reduce costs.

Car Parking Car parking is in a basement floor. It is assumed that the urban
position of the site would imply that it has benefit of good transport
facilities, and therefore minimal parking provision is required.

Servicing Plant is located so there can be shared usage of risers and equipment
between different uses. This also allows for a beneficial use of waste
heat from the offices to pre-heat the water or structure of the
residential element.

A detailed analysis of the actual likely diversified usage for the site
which considers timing of usage peaks would be carried out. Applying
a diversified usage to the building services design ensures the capacity
of installed equipment is optimised and therefore capital, running and
maintenance costs are minimised.

The offices have the greatest need for an environmental control system
by virtue of their high density of occupation or heat gain through
computer use. The scheme therefore encompasses a controlled lower
energy system of heating and cooling, combining 15/18m spaces with
a low energy chilled ceiling system of cooling which can be allied to
mixed node ventilation.

m 11

The residential accommodation is generally naturally ventilated.

Scaled buildings with high u-value and natural ventilation, especially
if employing lighter weight construction, tend to overheat. The scheme
makes allowance for natural or mechanical ventilation when the
accommodation is unoccupied during the daytime and overheating is
most likely to occur.

The Appraisals The development appraisals take into consideration two hypothetical
property developments, a 6-storey office building, and a 20-storey
mixed-use building. They have been undertaken on a traditional basis
to determine and compare residual land values. These take into
consideration construction costs, professional fees, acquisition and
disposal fees, development profit and other associated costs. Tables 3
and 4 summarise the appraisals for London and Birmingham

The appraisal for London Euston demonstrates a higher residual land

value for the mixed-use tower (£39m) in comparison to the single-use
building (£34m), as well as double the profits generated by a
single-use scheme.

The appraisal for Birmingham shows that the provision of

approximately equal amounts of residential and commercial space is
not attractive to developers, as the land value is significantly
reduced in comparison to a single-use development. The land value
falls from £24m for a single-use scheme to £12m for a mixed-use
building of 20-storeys.

The difference in performance between the two locations is attributable

to very similar construction costs, yet significantly different investment

12 m


Scenario 1: Scenario 2:
6-storey single-use building 20-storey single-use building
Gross Development Value Sq Ft ERV/Sales Rate Yield (£) Total Sq Ft ERV/Sales Rate Yield (£) Total
Residential - Private 82,497 £800.00 65,997,672
Residential - Affordable 54,998 £200.00 10,999,612
Office 149,204 £40.00 5.75% 103,793,896 145,859 £40.00 5.75% 101466,939
Retail 19,700 £28.00 5.50% 10,029,091
Car Parking 100 130
Gross Value 103.793,896 188,493,314
Purchaser's Costs 5.7625% 5,981,123 5.7625% 6,424,959
Net Value 97,812,772 182,068,355
Site & External Works 500,000 1,500,000
Construction Costs 25,365,000 66,636,800
Construction Contingency 5.00% 1,293,250 7.50% 5,110,260
Professional Fees 12.00% 3,258,990 14.00% 10,254,588
Tenant contribution 500,000 500,000
Planning Process 986,250 2,273,795
Disposal Fees 1,467,192 3,226,008
Letting Fees 1,193,630 1,277,190
Rent Free Cost Months Months
Retail 6 - ERV - 6 551,600 ERV 275,800
Offices 18 5,968,149 ERV 8,952,224 18 5,834,349 ERV 8,751,524

Development Interest 6.25% per annum 5,142,900 6.25% per annum 15,405,186
Funding Charges 1,477,636 2,726,992

Total Development Costs 50,137,072 117,938,142

Lead-in Duration 12 months 12 months
Construction Duration 18 months 30 months
Void Periods
Retail 0 months 12 months
Offices 18 months 18 months
Residential Sales
Affordable Proportion 0.00% 40.00%
Pre-PC Sales (Private) 0.00% 75.00%
Post-PC Sales Duration (Private) 0 months 12 months

Profit 15.00% on cost 11,590,506 15.00% on cost 22,570,569

Gross Land Value 36,085,194 41,559,644

SDLT 4.00% 1,443,408 4.00% 1,662,386
Agency acquisition fees 1.00% 360,852 1.00% 415,596
Legal acquisition fees 0.50% 180,426 0.50% 207,798
VAT 17.50% 94,724 17.50% 109,094
Residual Land Value 34,005,785 39,164,769

m 13


Scenario 1: Scenario 2:
6-storey single-use building 20-storey single-use building
Gross Development Value Sq Ft ERV/Sales Rate Yield (£) Total Sq Ft ERV/Sales Rate Yield (£) Total
Residential - Private 103,121 £360.00 37,123,691
Residential - Affordable 34,374 £200.00 6,874,758
Office 149,204 £28.00 5.10% 81,915,771 145,859 £28.00 5.10% 80,079,300
Retail 19,700 £20.00 5.25% 7,504,762
Car Parking 100 130
Gross Value 81,915,771 135,707,364
Purchaser's Costs 5.7625% 4,720,396 5.7625% 5,047,032
Net Value 77,195,374 130,660,333
Site & External Works 500,000 1,500,000
Construction Costs 23,692,500 59,554,030
Construction Contingency 5.00% 1,209,650 7.50% 4,579,052
Professional Fees 12.00% 3,048,225 14.00% 9,188,632
Tenant contribution 500,000 500,000
Planning Process 986,250 2,273,795
Disposal Fees 1,157,931 2,166,148
Letting Fees 835,541 895,609
Rent Free Cost Months Months
Retail 6 - ERV - 9 394,000 ERV 295,500
Offices 15 4,177,704 ERV 5,222,130 15 4,084,044 ERV 5,105,055

Development Interest 6.25% per annum 3,922,670 6.25% per annum 9,504,109
Funding Charges 1,269,251 2,126,416

Total Development Costs 42,344,152 97,688,346

Lead-in Duration 12 months 12 months
Construction Duration 18 months 30 months
Void Periods
Retail 0 months 3 months
Offices 9 months 9 months
Residential Sales
Affordable Proportion 0.00% 25.00%
Pre-PC Sales (Private) 0.00% 25.00%
Post-PC Sales Duration (Private) 0 months 12 months

Profit 15.00% on cost 9,387,814 15.00% on cost 15,800,207

Gross Land Value 25,463,408 13,046,925

SDLT 4.00% 1,018,536 4.00% 521,877
Agency acquisition fees 1.00% 254,634 1.00% 130,469
Legal acquisition fees 0.50% 127,317 0.50% 65,235
VAT 17.50% 66,841 17.50% 34,248
Residual Land Value 23,996,079 12,295,096

14 m

We have tested a number of sensitivities, the results of which are

The Sensitivities summarised in Table 4. Once the location is established, the biggest
sensitivity factors to residual land value are residential sales values,
affordable housing (in London particularly), residential construction
costs (in Birmingham particularly) and quantum. Which factors are
most critical is evidently affected by location.

For the Euston appraisal, each additional storey adds a further 3% to

the residual land value. Every 1% of affordable housing required
decreases the land value by 1.5%. The affordable housing element,
and negotiations with local planning authorities, will play a crucial
role. It also shows that approximately the same quantum of residential
space as commercial space needs to be added to the commercial
space before the land value sees any uplift.

The Birmingham appraisal shows that only once approximately 48

storeys are constructed (7 commercial floors, 1 plant floor and 40
residential floors) will the mixed-use building produce the same land
value as a single-use building (£24m), with the understanding that
sales values increase with height as seen in comparable schemes.
Density is therefore paramount.
Input % Change
Construction Time 30 (base) 0.00 Reducing the construction period by 6 months will increase the land value
24 5.00 by 5%.
18 10.14
Height (Storeys) 20 (base) 0.00 Quantum has a significant impact on land value. Each additional 5 storeys
25 17.77 of residential accommodation here adds approximately 18% to the land
30 36.31 value.
35 53.18
40 70.83
45 88.54
Net to Gross (Office) 85% -3.60 A 2% variation in the office gross to net ratio affects the land value by only
87 (base) 0.00 3%.
89% 2.93
Residential £200 (base) 0.00 A 10% reduction in cost here increases the land value by almost 9%.
Construction Costs £180 8.72
£160 17.43
Affordable Housing 40% (base) 0.00 Reducing the affordable housing required by 10% increases the land value
30% 14.17 by 14%.
20% 28.35
Private Residential £800 (base) 0.00 Increasing the residential sales values by 10% increases the land value by
Sales Value £880 11.51 11.5%.
£960 23.01

m 15

Input % Change
Construction Time 30 (base) 0.00 Reducing the construction period here has a more pronounced effect, with
24 9.58 6 months reduction leading to an increase in land value of close to 10%.
18 19.52
Height (Storeys) 20 (base) 0.00 The higher the level of residential accommodation the greater the sales
25 5.04 value. Each additional 5 storeys of residential accommodation adds
30 16.06 approximately £25 per sq ft to the average sales value. Therefore, each
35 32.80 additional 5 storeys would exponentially add to the land value. The first 5
40 54.42 additional storeys add 5%, then the next 5 storeys would add a further
45 82.59 10%.
Net to Gross (Office) 85% -9.64 Here the land value is more sensitive to the gross to net ratio of the office
87 (base) 0.00 element, where a 2% improvement would add almost 8% to the land
89% 7.63 value.
Residential £170 (base) 0.00 A 10% reduction in cost here would equate to approximately a 24%
Construction Costs £150 27.70 increase in the land value.
£130 55.25
Affordable Housing 25% (base) 0.00 Reducing the affordable housing required by 5% increases the land value
20% 5.62 by close to 6%.
15% 11.08
Private Residential £360 (base) 0.00 Increasing the residential sales values by 10% increases the land value by
Sales Value £400 22.44 approximately 20%.
£440 44.82

The costs associated with including any residential element (private or

affordable) will initially reduce the residual value. This is due to the
reduction in gross to net ratios through the inclusion of additional
cores and a plant floor, and through the increase in the build period
thereby affecting interest costs.

A change in residential sales values is a significant variable in

Birmingham, where a 10% uplift led to a 20% increase in land value,
almost double that for the Euston site. In Birmingham, a 10%
reduction in residential construction costs represented a circa 24%
increase in land value, as compared to a 9% increase in land value in

Improvements in gross to net ratios for the office element, and

changes in the construction period were less significant in the
performance of such mixed-use buildings

Whilst improvement to all the variables is unlikely, a more optimistic

view on sensitivity inputs for the mixed-use building could result in the
land value being as high as £40m for the Birmingham appraisal. This
is almost 70% higher than the land value for the single-use building.

16 m

There is at present apprehension about mixed-use buildings. Occupier

Conclusion requirements and expectations have grown significantly with
technological advances, and the natural instinct in addressing such
requirements is a sub-division of uses and hence specialisation.

Developers have preferred to refine their knowledge within particular

sectors, whilst in tandem with this, funding institutions have preferred
to invest in single-uses in order to best control their risk exposure and
sector weighting.

Partly in response to planning requirements for mixed-use, and partly

in response to the belief that benefit may be derived from mixed-use
buildings, the UK development market is starting to witness the
re-emergence of mixed-use buildings.

The design and timing hurdles associated with such development are
relatively well recognised, however what remains less understood is
the relationships between the key conditions required to make a
mixed-use building successful. What weighting should be attached to
which criteria, and how can these be best addressed?

The impact of affordable housing on mixed-use buildings is significant

and the subsequent reduction in net to gross area as a result of
additional cores and plant areas will also impact on profitability. As
such, the viability of mixed-use buildings in regional areas (i.e.
Birmingham) may be marginal with insufficient quantum. In
high-density city centres, mixed-use buildings are financially viable
provided that there is a sufficient quantity of the residential floor space
to compensate for the initial expense incurred for combining different
uses, and that the margin between the sales values and construction
costs is significant enough.

By finessing the variables, it is possible to imagine how mixed-use

buildings will become more viable and in vogue. It is thanks to the mix
of uses that pre-letting and pre-sales for individual uses can enhance
the debt and equity financing towards the whole. The residential shell
& core element could be pre-sold to a residential developer for fit-out,
car parking could be sold to a specialist operator, as could the retail,
hotel or leisure elements. The broader scope for early income receipts
would enhance debt and equity financing positions, and ultimately
may require smaller equity proportions, higher returns on equity
employed and hence could generate greater land values than
single-use developments.

CB Richard Ellis believe that through our research and involvement in

some of the existing examples we have a good understanding of the

m 17

matrix of characteristics, and a detailed understanding of the aspira-

tions of all parties involved. We can therefore assist in exploiting the
combination of independent sector cycles captured within the same
building. Furthermore, through financing tools we can help identify
and maximize the best potential city centre sites.

18 m


m 19


20 m
CB Richard Ellis (NYSE:CBG), a FORTUNE 1000
company, is the world’s leading commercial real estate
services firm (in terms of 2004 revenue).

The company serves real estate owners, investors and

occupiers by offering strategic advice and execution for
property leasing and sales; property, facilities and project
management; corporate services; debt and equity
financing; investment management; valuation and
appraisal; research and investment strategy;
and consulting.

Including partners and affiliates, the company has over

300 offices in more than 50 countries around the world.