Are We Building Too Many Studios? Demand, Occupancy, and the Future of Content Production
The studio building boom started with a simple problem: there was not enough high-quality space for the volume of scripted film and television being commissioned. Streamers wanted global production pipelines, broadcasters were defending schedules, and inward investment turned the UK into one of the world’s most attractive production bases.
That shortage has now become a more complex question. With new soundstages opening, existing sites expanding, and financing more cautious after the streaming reset, the industry has to ask whether studio construction has outrun demand.
The short answer is not that “too many studios” are being built everywhere. The better answer is that too much generic space may be arriving at the same time, while demand is shifting towards facilities with scale, crew depth, tax support, strong transport links, and flexible production technology.
A building boom followed a real shortage
The surge in studio development did not come from nowhere. During the late 2010s and early 2020s, demand for production space rose sharply as streaming platforms ordered more original series and international film projects sought reliable, well-serviced hubs.
For the UK, the appeal was clear:
Skilled crews with experience on large productions
A strong visual effects and post-production sector
Competitive film and high-end TV tax reliefs
English-language production infrastructure
Proximity to Europe and North America
Established studio clusters around London, the South East, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
At the peak of the boom, producers often faced long waits for premium stages. Large-scale productions needed height, power, workshops, offices, backlot options, water tanks, virtual production capacity, and nearby accommodation. Not every warehouse could become a stage that met those needs.
Industry advisers, studio operators and producers have made the same point in different ways: the shortage was not simply a shortage of square footage. It was a shortage of production-ready facilities in the right places, with the right support services.
That distinction matters now. A new stage that opens without the wider ecosystem may struggle, even while a nearby established site stays busy.
Occupancy has softened from the peak
Studio occupancy is hard to measure from the outside. Most bookings are private, long-term leases can hide short-term gaps, and public reporting differs between operators. A stage can also be “occupied” by set construction, prep or wrap, even when cameras are not rolling.
Still, the broad trend is clear. Occupancy was extremely tight during the streaming build-out. It then softened as commissioning slowed, financing tightened, and the 2023 Hollywood labour disputes delayed or paused productions.
A useful way to read the market is by looking at typical utilisation bands rather than chasing a single figure.
Market condition | Indicative occupancy pattern | What it means for studios |
Peak demand period | 85% to 95% at leading sites | Little spare capacity, strong pricing power, long lead times |
Healthy balanced market | 70% to 85% | Enough work to support investment, with room for scheduling gaps |
Soft market | 50% to 70% | More competition for bookings, pressure on rates and incentives |
Distressed market | Below 50% | Operators may defer expansion, seek alternative revenue or consolidate |
These figures are best read as industry benchmarks, not audited market totals. The exact number varies by site, region and production type. A premium stage near a major crew base can remain well booked while a speculative development elsewhere struggles.
This is where the debate about studio construction becomes more nuanced. A fall from near-full occupancy does not prove oversupply. It may simply mean the market has moved from panic shortage to a more normal cycle. Yet if too many projects complete during a commissioning slowdown, the weaker sites will feel it first.
The demand picture is changing, not disappearing
The demand for content has not collapsed. Audiences still watch scripted drama, factual entertainment, sport, children’s programming, live events, commercials and online video. Global platforms still need local and international titles. Broadcasters still need schedules. Producers still need controlled environments.
What has changed is the economics.
After years of subscriber-led expansion, many streamers shifted focus towards profitability. That has meant fewer blank-cheque commissions, more scrutiny on budgets, and longer development cycles. Buyers want shows that can travel, return, or support clear audience goals. Mid-budget scripted projects have faced particular pressure.
The result is fewer productions than the most optimistic forecasts assumed.
Several trends now shape demand for studio space:
Fewer but larger tentpole projects
Big franchises, event series and premium films still need major facilities. They can occupy large stages for months and often require multiple units. These productions favour established studios because delays are expensive and risk tolerance is low.
For top-tier sites, this remains a strong source of demand.
More pressure on mid-budget scripted work
Mid-budget drama and comedy have been squeezed by cautious commissioning. These projects can fill regional stages and smaller facilities, so any slowdown affects newer studios that expected a steady flow of series work.
This is the area where oversupply risk is most visible.
More international production, but with sharper location choices
Countries compete hard for inward investment. Tax credits, rebates and crew availability influence where productions land. If one territory becomes expensive or congested, work can move.
That means studios are not just competing locally. A UK facility may compete with Ireland, Hungary, Spain, Canada, Australia or parts of the United States, depending on the story, budget and incentive package.
Virtual production is useful, not a cure-all
LED volumes and real-time production tools have changed parts of the workflow. They help with car scenes, sci-fi environments, weather control and location replacement. They can reduce travel and improve creative control.
They do not eliminate the need for traditional stages. Sets still need building. Actors still need space. Large crews still need support. Virtual production is a specialised layer, not a universal replacement.
Some studios will win because they offer more than stages
A soundstage is only one part of production infrastructure. Producers choose sites based on risk, speed and cost. The strongest facilities usually offer a mix of physical space, services and local support.
The most bankable studios tend to have:
Multiple stages of different sizes
Workshops, mills and costume space
Production offices and green rooms
Reliable power and data infrastructure
Easy access to crew, airports and hotels
Strong health and safety systems
Backlot or exterior shooting options
Flexible booking terms where possible
Relationships with local authorities and suppliers
That package is hard to build quickly. It explains why some new developments may look attractive on paper but struggle in practice.
Industry consultants often warn developers about the same trap: converting a large industrial shed into a film facility does not automatically create demand. Productions are risk-averse. A studio with no track record needs to prove it can handle complex builds, tight schedules and last-minute changes.
There is also a labour question. A region can build stages faster than it can train experienced grips, electricians, art department crew, production accountants and assistant directors. If crew shortages push up costs or force teams to travel, the local advantage weakens.
The risk is uneven supply, not simple oversupply
“Are there too many studios being built?” is tempting because it sounds like a yes-or-no question. The market is more uneven than that.
There may be too much supply in certain categories:
Speculative stages without anchor tenants
Facilities far from crew bases
Smaller sites that cannot host premium scripted work
Projects based on 2021 commissioning assumptions
Developments that lack workshops, offices or support space
Studios dependent on a single type of production
At the same time, there may still be shortages in other categories:
Large, high-spec stages for major films and global series
Specialist water tanks and effects spaces
Facilities with strong virtual production support
Regional hubs tied to clear incentive and training plans
Sites with long-term relationships with major producers
This split creates a two-tier market. The best sites can maintain occupancy and pricing. Weaker sites compete on discounts, flexibility or alternative uses.
That does not mean new entrants cannot succeed. It means the business case has to be more realistic than it was during the boom. A studio now needs a clear answer to three questions:
What type of production are we built for?
Why would a producer choose this site over a proven alternative?
Can we survive a year when commissioning slows?
If those answers are vague, the risk rises.
Content creation is broader than film and high-end TV
One reason studio developers remain optimistic is that production no longer belongs only to feature films and prestige drama. Demand comes from a wider range of formats.
Studios can support:
Unscripted entertainment
Live-to-tape shows
Music performances
Commercial shoots
Games and motion capture
Branded entertainment
Short-form creator productions
Esports and live events
Education and corporate training video
That variety can help fill gaps, but it does not always support the same rents. A major drama may pay for long blocks of stage time, construction, parking and support services. A short commercial shoot may fill only a few days. A creator production may need excellent internet and a flexible package, but not a 30,000 sq ft stage.
So the growth of content creation is real, but it does not automatically absorb every new soundstage.
This is one of the biggest mistakes in optimistic market studies. They treat “more video” as a direct signal for “more studio demand”. In practice, much online content is made in small spaces, homes, portable sets or low-cost studios. It rarely replaces the economics of scripted film and television.
What experts are watching now
Across the sector, the most useful expert views tend to focus on fundamentals rather than hype.
Studio executives watch enquiry levels, hold periods and conversion rates. A full calendar matters less if productions keep delaying start dates. They want to know whether interest becomes signed contracts.
Producers watch total cost. If stage hire rises but crew, accommodation and travel also rise, the whole package can become less attractive. They value predictability as much as headline incentives.
Investors watch lease length and tenant quality. A studio with a long-term anchor tenant looks very different from a site relying on occasional bookings.
Regional bodies watch job creation and skills. A studio can bring meaningful economic benefits, but only if local people can access the work and the site attracts repeat productions.
Real estate advisers watch alternative use value. If a facility can revert to logistics, events or industrial use, downside risk is lower. Purpose-built studios in weak locations may have fewer options.
A common theme runs through all these views: the market still has opportunity, but the easy-money phase has passed.
The next phase will reward discipline
The next few years are likely to sort the market. Some planned studios will be delayed, redesigned or cancelled. Some completed facilities will pivot towards events, commercials, games or education. Others will form partnerships with streamers, broadcasters or production groups to secure steady use.
The strongest studios will not simply be the biggest. They will be the ones that combine the right location, the right specification and the right commercial model.
In practical terms, that means:
Building around confirmed demand, not only forecast demand
Designing flexible spaces that can serve several formats
Investing in crew training alongside physical infrastructure
Creating strong links with local suppliers and authorities
Avoiding debt assumptions based on peak occupancy
Offering technology only where it solves real production problems
For the UK, the long-term position is still strong. The country has proven it can attract major productions and support complex shoots. But competition is rising, and buyers have become more selective. A studio boom built on scarcity must now adapt to a market built on choice.
So are we building too many studios?
We are probably building too many of the same kind of studio in the wrong places, based on demand assumptions from the peak of the streaming boom. That is different from saying the industry has too much studio space overall.
Demand for production space remains real. Yet it is more selective, more cost-conscious and more exposed to global competition. Occupancy rates that once looked effortlessly high are no longer guaranteed. Producers have more options. Investors expect clearer evidence. Local ecosystems matter as much as bricks and steel.
The future of content production will still need studios. It will need fewer speculative boxes and more complete production hubs. The winners will be facilities that help productions reduce risk, control costs and make better work. The rest will have to cut prices, specialise, partner up or find another use for the space.
Comments