Office supply is contracting faster than demand is recovering, with limited deliveries and the removal of existing space contributing to a scarcity problem. Just 3.5 million square feet of new office space was delivered in the third quarter, matching the near-record low recorded in the second quarter. The figures suggest a market in which the availability of space, rather than simply the strength of occupier demand, is an important constraint.

At the same time, 9.6 million square feet of office space was removed through conversions or redevelopment. Those withdrawals exceeded new deliveries, illustrating how supply can tighten even without a strong recovery in demand. The figures support a supply-led explanation for scarcity. They do not, however, establish the scale of any increase in effective rents, identify which properties are commanding higher prices or show where tenants are moving in response.

The delivery figures provide an important part of that context. Third-quarter deliveries did not rebound from the second quarter’s near-record low, leaving the flow of new space subdued across both periods. This matters because deliveries represent additions that can expand the choices available to occupiers. When that flow remains limited, recovering demand has less new space to absorb it. The evidence is of persistently low deliveries, rather than a fresh quarterly decline in construction completions.

Read more: IMF warns Saudi attacks could have worldwide consequences

Withdrawals add another dimension to the supply picture. The 9.6 million square feet removed through conversions or redevelopment represents space leaving the office inventory, rather than merely a slowdown in additions. Low deliveries and withdrawals therefore bear on availability in different ways: one limits replacement and expansion, while the other reduces the existing stock. Read together, the figures offer a clearer explanation of contracting supply than either measure would provide on its own.

There are limits to what that comparison can show. Conversions and redevelopments are reported together, without a breakdown between the two. The figures consequently do not establish how much space has changed use or how much might eventually return as offices following redevelopment. Nor do they provide a timetable for any return. The immediate evidence concerns removals during the quarter; it is not a measure of the permanent loss of office capacity over a longer period.

For tenants, the significance of a smaller supply depends on whether the space remaining available meets their requirements. Aggregate deliveries and withdrawals cannot show that match. Scarcity could narrow an occupier’s options without affecting every building equally, but the figures do not identify the locations, property categories or specifications involved. They therefore cannot establish whether tenants seeking the newest offices are shifting towards other buildings, or whether the constraint is concentrated in a particular segment of the market.

Read more: Judge extends White House access protections for three outlets

The same distinction is important when assessing rents. Less supply alongside recovering demand can strengthen the conditions for landlords to seek higher rents, but that is not itself evidence of a measured rental increase. Delivery and removal totals describe the amount of space entering and leaving the market; they do not measure lease terms. There is no effective-rent series in the available figures against which to test the size, timing or distribution of any change in occupiers’ costs.

Two interpretations of the supply picture consequently need to be kept separate. The scarcity argument rests on a clear imbalance: space is being removed while new deliveries remain near a record low, and supply is falling faster than demand is recovering. The more cautious reading concerns the consequences, not that direction of travel. Without information on available existing space or the distribution of occupier demand, the figures cannot demonstrate how broadly the tightening is being felt across offices.

The distinction also prevents a supply contraction from being mistaken for a fully documented demand boom. Demand is recovering, but the material provides no measure of its pace. The stronger evidence concerns the supply side: subdued completions and substantial removals. That leaves the central market question focused on how much choice remains for occupiers, rather than on an assumed surge in leasing. Claims about tenant movements or rental gains require evidence beyond the delivery and withdrawal totals.

What happens next will depend on the relationship between deliveries, further removals and the recovery in demand. A change in any of those could alter the pressure on available space, though the figures provide no forecast. For now, the documented development is a constrained flow of new office space alongside a larger volume leaving the inventory. Establishing whether and how that shortage translates into effective rents will require direct rental evidence, rather than treating shrinking supply as a substitute for it.