designed to be chosen, or designed to be defensible

In property development and architecture, how safe is “playing it safe”?

Most decisions are now delegated to spreadsheets and industry specifications. Design becomes a tick-box exercise because developers and architects find solace in the perceived certainty of numbers and standards.

Spreadsheets and specifications matter - but only as foundations, not shortcuts. They are benchmarks, not deciding factors. Too often, they act as professional insurance: a way to justify decisions afterwards, rather than interrogate them in advance.

A spreadsheet can demonstrate project viability - but can it guarantee it? The moment conditions change, that viability comes under enormous stress. A development can tick every box and still fail to let or sell at a viable cost.

In design, industry standards (BCO for workplaces, retail specifications, housing standards) are frequently used as proxies for market intelligence. Yet standards are retrospective: they reflect what has worked before, not necessarily what will work next. And when everyone is compliant, what makes your building the inevitable choice?

In property development, whether in design or leasing, very little effort is put into hacking choice architecture. The dominant strategy is to play it safe - and pray.

Do other consumer brands operate this way?

Does Apple make iPhones by meeting the industry’s camera and battery specifications - or by redefining the terms of desire altogether?

Other consumer brands don’t design to be defensible. They design to be chosen.