The unit had been marketed conventionally for 3 or 4 years without a taker. That is a long time for space to earn nothing, and long enough that everyone involved had quietly accepted it as a fact about the building rather than a problem with the approach.
Botan asked the owner whether he could try. The answer was yes, largely because nothing was being lost by letting him. Rather than wait for an enquiry, he went looking — working out which operators wanted space of that kind in that area, and approaching them directly instead of advertising and hoping.
A national retailer came to the table within weeks and got close to signing. The deal then failed on the building rather than on the will: the floor loading was not sufficient for what they needed, and that is not something you negotiate your way around. They withdrew late.
The unit was let some time afterwards, to a different occupier, and not by the Group.
What changed my thinking
I did not let that unit and I am not going to pretend otherwise. What it settled for me is something else: the demand had been there the entire time. 3 or 4 years of nothing was not the market speaking. It was the difference between advertising space and going to find the person who needs it.
Vacancy is treated as a marketing problem: better photographs, a bigger board, a lower rent. Far more often it is a management problem. Someone has to decide the building is worth the effort of a search, and usually nobody is paid to make that decision.
Botan Hourami