how do we define wellbeing?

A narrow definition of wellbeing is starting to distort development decisions.

Because wellbeing is framed primarily through biology rather than psychology, it inflates metrics such as ceiling heights and outdoor space. These metrics are used as proxies to benchmark rental value.

The market is forced to price standards, not how occupiers actually choose.

And these standards dictate what gets built and what gets discarded: Optimisation of existing assets - through targeted intervention and repositioning - becomes a non-starter, not because it lacks merit, but because it cannot deliver the returns those standards demand, and is therefore perceived to underperform.

The consequences are increasingly palpable: high capital expenditure in an uncertain market, without the rental tension to justify it; lost rent, planning risk, and a tightening office supply. And yet viable buildings that could alleviate these pressures are written off because they don’t conform.

A more flexible definition of wellbeing, and therefore of value, would allow a wider range of viable outcomes, avoiding unnecessarily drastic interventions and enabling better use of existing assets.

Not every scheme needs radical intervention to justify its economics. Optimised assets can outperform if value is aligned with how the market actually behaves (and market behaviour is far more psychological than rational), and translated into design that makes them more likely to be chosen.