Law firm chooses transformation over relocation.
A leading law firm considered relocating. Strategic analysis showed transformation of the existing building was strategically and financially superior.
The challenge
The firm considered relocating to Zuidas after 20 years at the same city-centre address. Reasons: dated interior, acoustic and climate complaints, and a perception that Zuidas signalled 'modernity' to international clients. At the same time: the address was ingrained, partners were attached, and clients spoke positively about the identity of the historic building.
Our approach
We first tested the assumption 'Zuidas = modern = better' with a strategic fit analysis: what do clients actually expect from this firm? For top-tier commercial law, identity and discretion mattered more than gloss. The real problems — acoustics, climate, space inefficiency — could be solved within the existing property. We designed a phased transformation that kept operations running: one floor at a time, with temporary workspace between phases. A tight workplace concept (fixed partner offices, flex for associates) was set before design started.
The result
The firm stayed at its address — which clients and talent identify as a strategic advantage. Transformation resolved every issue at 40% less investment than a relocation plus fit-out on Zuidas. More importantly: identity remained intact; no partner departed during the transition period.
Key outcomes
“The question wasn't 'more modern or not'. It was: what do clients return here for? That answer changed the entire project.”
Composite scenario — drawn from real engagements, not a single client.