Chicago’s Office Market Has a Build-Out Problem, Not a Demand Problem

Share

Chicago’s office market tells a story that headlines rarely capture accurately. On the surface, the numbers look grim. Transaction volume sits at roughly 55% of its 2019 peak, and the city has logged around 15 consecutive quarters of negative net absorption. But for Brett Polich, Managing Principal of EWP Architects, the data obscures a more complicated reality playing out inside buildings every day.

“Things are not rosy,” Polich acknowledges, “but there is a lot of opportunity.”

Buildings that can offer well-designed, purpose-driven space are still attracting tenants. The challenge is that delivering that kind of space now costs far more – and takes far longer – than it did even a few years ago. That tension between rising expectations and rising costs sits at the center of nearly every conversation that Polich’s Chicago-based workplace design firm is having with clients right now.

From Footprint to Purpose

One of the most persistent misconceptions in the office market is that companies are simply shrinking their space. Polich directly pushes back on that narrative. The compression trend of the post-2008 recession – rows of five-foot desks, stripped-back meeting rooms, economics driving every square-foot decision – was a different phenomenon entirely.

What’s happening now, he argues, is a rethinking of what the office is for. The forces driving that shift predate COVID: intensifying competition for knowledge workers made office quality a genuine recruiting signal; the mainstreaming of workplace wellness gave language and legitimacy to what had once been dismissed as soft concerns; and the hybrid baseline — most office workers now splitting time between home and office — means every day spent in the office carries more weight than it once did.

Organizations are designing around culture, well-being, and collaboration rather than just density. “I think of the office now as a health and humanism approach,” he says. “How do we create a place that brings a different level of support, a different sense of culture and meaning to people?”

What’s genuinely new is that organizations are now being asked to articulate something they never had to before: why the office exists at all. The answer is made harder by a construction cost environment that has changed dramatically.

Supply chain disruptions exposed how fragile the materials pipeline was — costs for steel, glass, and mechanical systems spiked and haven’t fully recovered. Skilled trades were already scarce before 2020 and the shortage has deepened since, driving up both cost and lead times. Municipal permitting backlogs have added further drag, independent of construction itself. “The cost to execute has quintupled in the last five years,” Polich notes. “The time to execute has doubled, if not tripled.” Those pressures push companies toward longer lease terms to justify the investment, which, in turn, makes planning feel riskier as the business landscape shifts quickly.

Good Office Design

The shift from density-driven to purpose-driven design is easiest to see on the ground. Polich breaks every workplace down into four components: heads-down workspace, collaboration space, community space, and technical space. The mix and execution change by organization — the underlying need doesn’t.

EWP’s recent 80,000-square-foot project for the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund shows what designing to all four looks like. The organization had occupied the same space for roughly 25 years, spread across two and a half floors that had grown increasingly siloed over time.

The redesign introduced glass-fronted private offices for heads-down work and removed physical barriers between departments to open up collaboration. Pantries, shared gathering areas, and improved meeting spaces addressed community. The consolidation onto two floors, with natural light and fluid circulation throughout, gave the technical infrastructure room to support all of it.

The goal was a space that could adapt as departments grew or contracted without requiring structural changes. Polich explains the thinking: “They recognized that demanding more time of people in the office meant that the place needed to be worth more of their time.”

The Building Owner’s Dilemma

While tenant expectations have risen, the economics for landlords have tightened considerably. Trophy-class buildings in Chicago continue to perform well – Polich notes there arguably aren’t enough of them – but the broader inventory of B-plus and mid-tier assets faces a tougher road.

The payback period on speculative suites has stretched dramatically. “Five or six years ago, a spec suite could get a return in three years. Now it’s more than 10,” Polich says. That reality is forcing building owners to think differently about capital allocation and long-term positioning.

Polich’s view on repositioning older assets is straightforward: any dated building needs to be repositioned. Improving an existing asset costs less than building a new one. But the decision still depends on ownership structure, available capital, and appetite for a long-term hold.

What he does observe is a meaningful uptick in energy from building owners over the past year. “There’s been more activity and more excitement and more desire in the last 12 months than there has been in the last 60,” he says. Whether that translates into completed projects remains to be seen, but the direction of intent has clearly moved.

What Mandates Miss

The return-to-office debate has generated significant media attention, particularly around high-profile mandates from financial institutions. Polich sees mandates as a blunt instrument — and is equally skeptical of the metrics used to evaluate them. Keycard swipe data, he argues, is a poor proxy for actual office health, a narrow data set being used to draw broad conclusions.

The organizations succeeding at bringing people back aren’t demanding more time — they’re making the environment worth showing up for. Showing up for a video call in an open-plan office is a different experience from showing up in a space with genuine heads-down work areas, collaboration zones, and the kind of community infrastructure that justifies the commute.

One notable shift involves recent graduates. After a period when new hires resisted in-person work, Polich is now seeing early-career employees actively seeking office environments. “I think they’ve recognized that being in person gives them more opportunity,” he says. “It gives them the chance to learn, to advance professionally.”

Regional culture plays a role too. EWP operates in both Chicago and Nashville, and Polich is candid about the difference. Chicago runs on longer hours and higher intensity; Nashville operates at a different pace. Neither is wrong, but the implication for workplace design is that uniform approaches rarely hold.

What Actually Matters

For a market still working through the aftermath of a prolonged disruption, that grounding may prove more useful than any quarterly absorption figure. Polich notes more activity and genuine excitement among building owners over the past 12 months than in the preceding five years — a signal that intent, at least, has shifted.

The buildings attracting tenants today aren’t the ones chasing trends — they’re the ones that have clearly answered the question of why people should be there at all. As costs continue to climb and tenant expectations rise in parallel, Polich argues, that clarity will increasingly separate the properties that thrive from those that sit empty.

About the Expert: Brett Polich is the Managing Principal of EWP Architects, a Chicago-based workplace design firm with offices in Chicago and Nashville. 

This article is based on information provided by the expert source cited above. It is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or real estate advice. Readers should conduct their own research and consult qualified professionals before making any real estate or financial decisions.

Steve Marcinuk
Steve Marcinuk
Steve Marcinuk is co-founder of KeyCrew and features editor at the KeyCrew Journal, where he interviews industry leaders and writes in-depth analysis on real estate, construction technology, and property innovation trends. His work provides unique insights into how technology is leading evolution in these industries. Since 2015, Steve has scaled and exited two digital content and communications startups while establishing himself as a thought leader in AI-driven content strategy. His industry analysis has been featured in VentureBeat, PR Daily, MarTech Series, The AI Journal, Fair Observer, and What's New in Publishing, where he contributes insights on the practical and ethical implications of AI in modern communications. Through the KeyCrew Marketing Studio, Steve partners with forward-thinking real estate and technology companies to transform complex industry expertise into compelling narratives that capture media attention. This approach has consistently delivered results, with real estate clients featured in Property Shark, Commercial Edge, Barron's, and Forbes for coverage spanning lending trends, market analysis, and property technology. His strategic guidance has secured client coverage in over 450 leading outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and Reuters, helping organizations build authentic thought leadership positions that move their business forward. Steve holds a magna cum laude degree in Marketing and Entrepreneurship from the Wharton School of Business and splits his time between South Florida and Medellín, Colombia, where he lives with his wife Juliana and their two young boys.

Explore

More Articles