Office relocation or refurbishment? How to compare cost, risk and delivery time
When a lease approaches expiry, a company can refurbish its current office or relocate. The comparison should not stop at rent and fit-out price. It should also include design, phased works, moving, lease overlap, reinstatement of the old space, building constraints and the cost of an office mismatch over the following years.
The Ecoffices Model structures and evaluates both options through three pillars: Function & Space, Capital & Time, and Building Physics & Environment. It does not replace analysis of a specific lease and building, but shows where an apparently cheaper decision may generate cost, risk or delay.
The office decision begins when the current space stops supporting how the company works
The issue most often returns near lease expiry, during renegotiation, after a change in headcount, when moving to hybrid work or after several years in an office designed for a different organisation. The question is not simply whether the office looks worn. More importantly, does it still meet the needs of the team, technology, meetings, focused work, client service and cost management?
A robust analysis does not start with the question, ‘How much will refurbishment cost?’. First, the current office should be tested as a base for another lease cycle. This is supported by office test-fit and workplace capacity analysisOnly then should refurbishment, relocation, scope and budget be compared.
- the lease or firm term is approaching expiry,
- the landlord proposes new terms or a contribution to the works,
- the company wants to compare the cost of staying with the cost of relocating,
- CAPEX needs to be compared with total lease cost over time.
- some desks are empty while meeting rooms are insufficient,
- the office does not support hybrid work, focus or project teams,
- the layout forces compromises instead of supporting work,
- the company pays for floor area that does not deliver functional value.
- ventilation, cooling, electrical systems or IT no longer meet requirements,
- a layout change triggers expensive MEP clashes,
- acoustics and comfort reduce workplace usability,
- an apparently simple refurbishment requires building approvals.
In many companies, the stay-or-relocate decision is made too late. The closer the lease expiry, the greater the time pressure, the weaker the negotiating position and the higher the risk of choosing an option that is easy to approve but weak operationally.
Entry cost is not the same as decision cost
Comparing refurbishment cost with the cost of fitting out new space is necessary but insufficient. A lower cost per square metre may look attractive in the investment budget, yet months later the company may still have the wrong meeting-room mix, too many empty desks, too few places for calls, inadequate technical systems or space that does not match actual attendance.
The decision should therefore be assessed more broadly: total lease cost, programme, moving cost, lease overlap, reinstatement, landlord contribution, technical risk and the value recovered through better workplace fit.
- when it leaves a layout that does not fit the working model,
- when replacing visible finishes hides technical problems,
- when the company continues paying for floor area with no real function,
- when further corrective works are needed soon after refurbishment.
- when it allows the company to reduce or use space more efficiently,
- when the new layout reduces mismatch cost throughout the lease term,
- when the building provides better infrastructure for IT, HVAC and meetings,
- when landlord contribution materially reduces entry cost.
The winning option is not the one with the lowest cost per square metre. It is the option that delivers the best balance of cost, function, risk and predictability over the full lease term.
Refurbishment and relocation have different hidden costs — both options need to be measured over the same horizon
The most common mistake is comparing refurbishment of the existing office with the fit-out cost of new space. That is only part of the equation. A fair comparison should cover the full lease term and all costs and disruption required to implement the selected option.
The calculation should also include space-mismatch cost if the selected option constrains the company’s way of working for several years.
Stay and refurbish
- design, survey and approvals with building management,
- phased works or temporary workplaces for the team,
- out-of-hours works and the cost of restricted office access,
- alterations to HVAC, electrical systems, IT, FAS, BMS and sprinklers,
- retention, repair or replacement of existing FF&E,
- the risk of retaining a layout that still does not support the company.
Relocate the office
- design and fit-out of the new space,
- overlap of two leases and service charges,
- move, logistics, IT, AV and server-room commissioning,
- reinstatement or settlement of the current office on exit,
- new furniture, additions and items that cannot be relocated,
- programme allowance for handover, defects and operational readiness.
Relocation may have higher CAPEX but lower cost over the lease term if it reduces floor area, improves test-fit and avoids expensive building constraints. Refurbishment may be better when the existing layout and MEP systems provide a strong base, works can be carried out with limited disruption and the landlord makes a meaningful contribution. If staying wins, the next step may be refurbishment of the existing office.
Cost reference points are available in our articles on how much office fit-out costs and office fit-out CAPEX benchmarkSpace left by a previous tenant should also be assessed using the principles in our guide on what is worth retaining in an office after the previous tenant.
A good decision requires several layers of comparison, not one price table
The Ecoffices Office Decision Model 2026 compares staying, refurbishing and relocating across several layers at once. It shows not only the cost of preparing the office, but also whether the space can accommodate the workplace programme, whether lifetime cost is justified, how strongly the decision loads cash and where technical risks appear.
These are illustrative comparison scenarios, not office-market statistics. They do not describe market stock, vacancy or current rents in individual cities. The Ecoffices Model structures and evaluates options using assumptions about floor area, specification, working model, cost, time and building systems.
In practice, this analysis is particularly useful for management boards, CFOs, administration teams, facility managers and workplace teams. It separates the option that is cheapest at the start from the option that is most rational over the lease cycle.
- Eco Start: PLN 2,260/m² net,
- Eco Flow: PLN 3,080/m² net,
- Eco Signature: PLN 5,200/m² net,
- technical scope, finishes, FF&E, AV/IT and contingency.
- rent and service charges,
- lease overlap and moving period,
- exit cost from the current space,
- impact of landlord contribution on the real decision cost.
- whether the space accommodates the team and working model,
- how much floor area is underused or overloaded,
- whether the layout supports meetings, focus and teamwork,
- which technical risks will arise during delivery.
Two options can have similar preparation cost but completely different decision quality. One may require five years of compromises; the other may improve the working model, reduce underused floor area and limit later corrections.
Nine Ecoffices indices form an audit system, not a list of isolated metrics
A conventional comparison focuses on rent, fit-out cost and landlord contribution. These are important, but they are not enough to assess decision quality. The Ecoffices Value & Risk Matrix groups its metrics into three pillars: operational efficiency of space, investment liquidity and hard building/environmental constraints.
Shows the cost of leased floor area that exists in the contract but does not deliver functional value for the team.
Converts poorly matched space into a hidden cost that the organisation pays throughout the following years of the lease.
Shows how strongly the workplace programme, people and functions are compressed into the available floor area.
Assesses when the decision creates the highest cash load and whether expenditure concentration is safe for liquidity.
Shows whether landlord contribution genuinely leverages the tenant’s investment or merely improves the initial appearance of the offer.
Converts delay, lease overlap, approval time and delivery time into money consumed during each week of the decision.
Describes building resistance: MEP systems, HVAC, IT, risers, power, server-room requirements and technical delivery constraints.
Identifies cases where a cheap square metre is a financial trap because it hides poor test-fit, programme pressure or technical cost.
Defines the point in time when the decision offsets its initial environmental debt through lower emissions or asset retention.
See how the Ecoffices Matrix changes by city, floor area, working model and specification
The explorer below compares office-decision scenarios. You can filter by city, floor area, working model, specification and decision path. The objective is not to produce one automatic answer, but to show where cost, function, risk and time begin to change the economics of an option.
0 / 0 scenarios visible after filtering.
| ID | City | Floor area | Working model | Specification | Decision path | CAPEX | Capital load peak | Test-fit | CO₂e | Utilisation deficit | Functional debt | Cost illusion | Building resistance | Details |
|---|
Do not look for one magic answer. Look for the point where the decision stops being obvious
The best analysis is not a table that automatically says ‘stay’ or ‘relocate’. The important point is where the cheaper option begins generating hidden costs and the more expensive option begins recovering value through better fit.
- the current layout can be adapted without major technical clashes,
- the space accommodates the current and future working model well,
- Space Utilisation Deficit is low,
- the landlord provides effective lease leverage,
- the company does not lose workplace quality by remaining in the location.
- the current space is structurally mismatched to the team,
- refurbishment requires major MEP changes,
- Office Functional Debt grows over time,
- the new building provides better technical systems, logistics and flexibility,
- higher entry cost reduces total decision cost over the lease term.
If staying wins on entry cost but loses on functional fit, the decision requires caution. If relocation loses on CAPEX but reduces utilisation deficit, improves workplace organisation and lowers building resistance, it should not be rejected simply because the first number is higher.
Frequently asked questions about relocation, refurbishment and the Ecoffices Value & Risk Matrix
An office decision rarely comes down to a simple comparison of rent or fit-out cost. The questions below address the most common concerns of management boards, CFOs, administration teams and workplace decision-makers.
Is it better to stay in the current office or relocate to a new location?
The decision cannot be made from cost per square metre alone. It should compare total lease cost, CAPEX, test-fit, landlord contribution, technical risk, time, Space Utilisation Deficit and Office Functional Debt.
When is refurbishment of the existing office rational?
Refurbishment makes sense when the existing space fits the working model, the layout can be adapted without major technical clashes, Space Utilisation Deficit is low and the landlord provides effective lease leverage.
When can office relocation be better despite higher CAPEX?
Relocation may be rational when the existing office has high Office Functional Debt, strong Workplace Compression, high Building Resistance or when a new space provides better test-fit and lower total decision cost over the lease term.
What is the Ecoffices Value & Risk Matrix?
The Ecoffices Value & Risk Matrix is a proprietary analytical system of nine indices grouped into three pillars: Function & Space, Capital & Time, and Building Physics & Environment.
Why is cost per square metre not enough for an office decision?
Cost per square metre shows entry cost only. It does not show Office Functional Debt, Space Utilisation Deficit, Workplace Compression, Capital Load Peak, Lease Time Burn Rate, Building Resistance or the Cost Illusion of an apparently cheap square metre.
What does the Cost Illusion Index mean?
The Cost Illusion Index identifies cases where a low cost per square metre looks attractive but becomes a financial trap after TCO, poor test-fit, technical risks and mismatch cost are included.
What does Lease Time Burn Rate mean?
Lease Time Burn Rate shows how much one week of delay, lease overlap, prolonged approvals or extended office delivery costs.
Calculate your own decision: cost, TCO, capacity and carbon footprint
An office decision should combine financial, functional, technical and environmental analysis. The tools below help determine whether the selected option is merely cheaper at the start or genuinely better across the lease cycle.
Office Lease TCO Calculator
Compare staying, refurbishing and relocating through rent, service charges, entry cost, exit cost, lease overlap and cost over time.
Office Fit-Out Cost Calculator
Estimate office preparation CAPEX under Eco Start, Eco Flow and Eco Signature.
Office Test-Fit & Workplace Capacity Calculator
Check whether the space can accommodate the team, meeting rooms, booths, support functions, shared areas and the actual working model.
Office Carbon Footprint Calculator
Compare the carbon impact of refurbishment, asset retention, materials, MEP systems and relocation.
Office fit-out and refurbishment
See how Ecoffices manages analysis, design, budget, technical coordination and turnkey office delivery.