When is relocating offices actually the right call? Five signals.
The question 'should we move?' rarely arrives with an open answer. There's usually discomfort — capacity pressure, complaints, a looming lease moment — and relocation gets framed as the logical answer fast. In advisory practice we see that relocation is actually the right call in about a third of those situations. The other two-thirds deliver more by reconfiguring, expanding, or solving a specific pain point. This article describes the five signals we see consistently when relocation is the right route — and when it is not.
Signal 1 — Structural capacity pressure and contract flexibility
Average occupancy above 85 percent on peak days, combined with a growth forecast above 20 percent over three years, plus a break option or lease expiry within 12 to 18 months — that combination is the clearest relocation indicator. Three variables reinforcing each other; one or two alone is usually not enough.
Verify occupancy with 8 to 12 weeks of actual measurement — not badge data, not a policy assumption. The gap between 'we agreed three days per week' and observed behaviour runs consistently at 15 to 25 percent in our measurements. Steering on the wrong number means relocating too early or too large.
Signal 2 — Location works against your talent strategy
When two-thirds of your target population no longer sits within reasonable commute, or when your location becomes an employer-brand handicap for roles you genuinely need, that is a structural signal. Reconfiguring will not fix it.
Test this hard: ask your recruitment lead in what percentage of cases the location is raised negatively in the first three conversations. Above 25 percent, location is a strategic problem, not a practical one. A relocation to a strategic location can then carry the business case — not more m², but better m².
Signal 3 — The building does not allow the way you want to work
High collaboration need in a building with small floor plates and many floors leads structurally to team fragmentation. A focus-heavy organisation in an open and noisy building leads structurally to productivity loss. When work type and building structure fundamentally do not match, reconfiguration is cosmetic and relocation is often the honest route.
One nuance: the 'desired work pattern' shifts over time. Relocating on a hybrid norm that is revised again in two years is an expensive correction. Test the assumption about how you work explicitly — before the property choice, not after. The Hybrid Sizing Calculator helps start that board conversation with rigour.
Signal 4 — Technical condition forces material CapEx
A building with imminent installation replacement, a low energy label and arrears on climate and acoustics can demand investment within five years that approaches the cost of a full transformation. At that point the comparison is no longer 'stay or move' but 'transform or move' — a materially different conversation.
Independent technical due diligence is essential for this signal. Without it the choice is made on the calculation of the party with an interest in the answer. See also relocate or transform for the wider strategic frame.
Signal 5 — The strategic signal to the market no longer fits
An organisation shifting fundamentally — internationally, in scale, in sector — sometimes needs a building that tells that story. An under-used floor in a dated building tells the opposite story. This signal is harder to quantify, but do not underestimate it: boards consistently overestimate what their clients and talent 'do not see' about an office.
The reverse holds too. For organisations that explicitly want to project continuity — family offices, established services firms, multinationals with long history on one location — relocation is often a strategic loss. Reconfiguration is almost always the stronger answer there.
What to do with these signals
One signal is usually not enough. Two signals justify a serious parallel investigation of 'stay and reconfigure' versus 'relocate'. Three or more signals almost always point to relocation.
Start with the Should We Move Offices? tool — seven inputs, one strategic recommendation — and use the outcome to open the right conversation at the board table. Visit properties only once strategic direction is set; otherwise supply dictates direction, instead of the other way round.
Frequently asked questions
How far ahead should this question be answered?
+
Preferably 24 to 36 months before lease expiry or target operational date. Shorter is possible but limits real options and weakens your negotiating position materially.
Is relocating always more expensive than staying?
+
On the face of it, often yes. But once you account for Total Cost of Occupancy over 10 to 15 years — including unavoidable CapEx in the existing building, productivity loss from mismatch, and attrition — the comparison frequently flips.
What if the board is split on relocation?
+
A split is almost never a preference difference. It is almost always a lack of shared strategic premises. Start there — not with properties.
How do I weigh employee satisfaction in this call?
+
Satisfaction is a symptom, not a cause. Always investigate exactly what is driving dissatisfaction. Climate and acoustics are often solvable in the current building; location and image rarely are.
Which tool should I use first?
+
Start with Should We Move Offices? for strategic direction. Only when 'relocate' emerges do you use the Workplace Decision Scorecard to compare candidate properties.
Relocate or transform: the question to settle before the project starts
Boards that frame relocate-or-transform as a preference end up with the wrong answer. Framed as a strategic and TCO question, the right answer becomes visible quickly.
Multi-year housing strategy: the document the board should defend by
Most organisations confuse a lease overview with a housing strategy. A real strategy makes a decade of decisions defensible — and replaces ad-hoc bets with a coherent posture.