ties in Copenhagen has been characterised by declining investment
Figure 30: Geographic breakdown (BN DKK)
activity, and in 2021 the activity was almost halved compared to
AREA
the activity in 2019 (
2020
2021
Copenhagen
8.1
6.9
Greater Copenhagen
1.1
4.8
Other Zealand
1.0
1.5
Aarhus
0.3
2.2
by the sale of Ørsted’s domicile in Gentofte to almost DKK 2.5bn.
Other Jutland & Funen
1.6
2.9
Therefore, the increase in activity should not be seen as an indi-
Total
12.1
18.4
figure 31). This is not due to a lack of investor
demand but rather because there has only been a limited supply of the best-located office properties. Contrary to the development in Copenhagen, the investment a ctivity in Greater Copenhagen increased. However, this was p rimarily driven
cation of a demand that has generally been increasing in Greater
CHANGE
ANNUAL REVIEW
In the past three years, the investment market for office proper-
RESIDENTIAL
LACK OF PRIME OFFICE PROPERTIES
Copenhagen. The investors’ focus on prime properties is also reflected in the office market in Aarhus, where the sale of five modern office properties at a total volume of approx. DKK 1.9bn resulted in a sixfold of the investment activity from 2020 (
figure 30).
While foreign investors have been dominant in Copenhagen, their investment appetite for office assets outside Copenhagen has been
OFFICE
more or less non-existent. Therefore, the foreign investors were only behind 13 out of the 348 transactions with office properties, which were completed outside of Copenhagen in 2021.
LOGISTICS
Figure 31: Office – Geographic breakdown of the transaction volume 2019-2021
15
12 32%
54% 68%
RETAIL
6
42%
3 46%
90%
58%
78%
64% 0 2019
2020
2021
COPENHAGEN Source: ReData
36%
73%
10%
2019
2020
2021
2019
GREATER COPENHAGEN Danish
99%
75% 2020 AARHUS
2021
87%
90% 22%
2019
2020
2021
REST OF DENMARK
Foreign
HOTEL
BN DKK
9
Office | 47