In a unitary city system, firms choose to locate in the city centre that offers the most efficient form of face-to-face communications with clients and suppliers. However, firms are heterogeneous and they may have different considerations in their office space decision, the assumption of the agglomeration economies may not, therefore, be strictly binding. Extended along the behavioral agenda, this study evaluates the office space preference of occupiers in Suntec City using a structured questionnaire survey. Based on the mean score statistics, the sample firms ranked the image and prestige of the office location and the accessibility by public transport as the two most important factors in office space choice process. Proximity to competitors or firms in similar business line, which was the proxy for agglomeration economies, was ranked the second lowest among the 36 office space determinants. Using the principal component methodology, the office determinants were reduced to 8 latent principal factors, which explain more than 75% variances in the office space determinants for the sample firms. When we examine the influence of the 8 principal factors on the office space decision of the 4 homogenous clusters of firms using a multinomial logistic regression model, it was found that firms that place significant importance on face-to-face convenience and image and branding of the office location will likely be those that have a flatter organization structure. These firms are more willing to pay a rental premium to be close to the competitors, suppliers and clients. The pro-business environment factor will appeal to firms that have already established a strong business network in the building.
[1]
Craig Watkins,et al.
The decision‐making behaviour of office occupiers
,
2004
.
[2]
Neil Dunse,et al.
Testing for the Existence of Office Sub-markets: A Comparison of Evidence from Two Cities
,
2002
.
[3]
Colin Lizieri,et al.
Friction and Inertia: Business Change, Corporate Real Estate Portfolios and the U.K. Office Market
,
2001
.
[4]
Craig Watkins,et al.
Classifying office submarkets
,
2001
.
[5]
Martin Hoesli,et al.
Defining Housing Submarkets
,
1999
.
[6]
Michael Ball,et al.
The Economics of Commercial Property Markets
,
1998
.
[7]
W. Wheaton,et al.
Urban Economics and Real Estate Markets
,
1995
.
[8]
James E. Rauch.
Does History Matter Only When it Matters Little? the Case of City-Indu Try Location
,
1993
.
[9]
J. Dunning,et al.
The Location Choice of Offices of International Companies
,
1987
.
[10]
John M. Clapp,et al.
THE INTRAMETROPOLITAN LOCATION OF OFFICE ACTIVITIES
,
1980
.
[11]
Tien Foo Sing,et al.
Network Effects and Broadband Connectivity in Office Building
,
2002
.
[12]
P. Wyatt.
CAN A GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF PROPERTY VALUES AID BUSINESS LOCATION PLANNING?
,
1999
.