Over the past year, the same conversations kept coming up across projects, calls, and proposals. Different asset types, different markets – but very similar pressure points. These weren’t abstract trends; they were operational realities showing up again and again.
Here’s what stood out.
Design decisions are being judged by how well they support operations
- Clients cared less about whether something was “interesting” and more about whether it worked long-term.
- We spent more time talking about wear patterns, replacement cycles, cleaning protocols, and flexibility.
- Amenity spaces were evaluated by how they supported leasing teams, residents, or staff – not how they photographed.
- When design teams could clearly explain how a space supported daily use, approvals moved faster.
What to notice: Design that can’t be explained in operational terms is getting harder to defend.
Budgets stayed tight – expectations stayed high
- Most projects came in with tighter or unchanged budgets compared to previous years.
- At the same time, owners still expected spaces to feel elevated and competitive.
- Value engineering became less about cutting scope and more about making smarter trade-offs earlier.
- Projects struggled most when budget conversations were delayed or avoided.
What to notice: Budget issues usually weren’t the problem – late decisions were.
Great design couldn’t fix late decisions
- Clients who locked decisions early had more control over pricing, availability, and schedules.
- Projects slowed down when design approvals dragged or shifted repeatedly.
- Small changes made late in the process often created outsized cost and schedule impacts.
- Teams that understood the downstream effect of timing made faster, more confident decisions.
What to notice: Speed came from clarity, not urgency
Procurement risk became part of the design conversation
- Lead times, discontinuations, and price increases were no longer procurement problems.
- Designers were expected to understand availability and substitution strategies.
- Clients asked more questions about when items needed to be ordered, not just what they were.
- Projects ran smoother when procurement planning overlapped with design development.
What to notice: Treating procurement as something that happens after design is costing people time and money.
“Small” refreshes still required real time and coordination
- Clients often underestimated how much effort refresh projects actually take.
- Even limited scopes required sourcing, approvals, tracking, coordination, and installation planning.
- Teams juggling multiple refreshes felt decision fatigue faster than expected.
- Tools and processes that reduced friction were welcomed – especially for lower-budget work.
What to notice: There’s a growing gap between how simple refreshes appear and how complex they actually are.
Standardization quietly gained traction
- More clients asked for repeatable design frameworks instead of one-off solutions.
- Standard palettes, furniture kits, and finish libraries helped teams move faster.
- Customization still mattered – but within guardrails.
- Portfolio-wide consistency became a strategic advantage.
What to notice: Standardization isn’t about limiting creativity.
Technology is filling real gaps
- Clients were more open to tools that supported faster approvals and clearer decisions.
- Not every project needed a fully bespoke design process to be successful.
- Time-saving tools weren’t viewed as cutting corners – they were viewed as practical.
- The focus shifted from novelty to usefulness.
What to notice: The industry is less interested in “new” and more interested in “works.”
Early engagement consistently paid off
- Projects that aligned design, procurement, and budget expectations early had fewer surprises.
- Upfront clarity reduced rework, stress, and stalled decisions.
- Clients who invested time at the beginning saved money and energy later.
Final takeaway: The most successful projects weren’t the ones with the biggest budgets – they were the ones with the clearest direction.
