Milano continues to build new offices while a massive share of its existing stock risks losing competitiveness. Urbanfile has highlighted an estimate according to which up to 86% of office stock could be obsolete compared to the new standards required by companies, investors, and workers. The figure should be read carefully, as "obsolete" does not automatically mean vacant or unusable: it refers to buildings that risk no longer meeting the energy, technological, environmental, or flexibility requirements demanded by the market.
It is precisely this distinction that makes the issue interesting. A city can simultaneously have construction sites for new skyscrapers and underutilised office buildings just a few kilometres away. The risk is polarisation: top-tier properties concentrate demand and value, while mid-tier ones enter a spiral of declining investment and progressive deterioration.
Hybrid work has changed what an office needs to offer
If people are no longer required to be on-site five days a week, a building has to justify the commute. Collaborative spaces, natural light, air quality, amenities, and accessibility become more important than the mere availability of desks.
Properties designed decades ago for rows of workstations and large archives may therefore prove ill-suited, even if structurally sound.
Energy has become a financial variable
Low energy performance means higher utility bills and greater difficulty meeting ESG targets. For large corporations and funds, this can make a building less desirable regardless of location.
Upgrading facades, building systems, and control systems requires capital, but failing to intervene can reduce the asset's value even further.
Not every office can become a home
The most intuitive response to the housing crisis is converting vacant offices into residential units. In some cases it works, but conversion is complex. Floor plan depth, windows, building systems, stairwells, and fire safety regulations can make a project expensive or unfeasible.
Building-by-building assessments and regulations capable of facilitating sensible projects without creating unrealistic expectations are therefore required.
Regeneration can be more sustainable than demolition
A building contains a large amount of embodied carbon in concrete, steel, and materials. Demolishing and rebuilding eliminates inefficiencies, but requires new energy and raw materials. Reusing existing structures can reduce the impact whenever technically feasible.
Urban sustainability over the next decade will therefore also depend on the ability to design ambitious retrofits.
Milano already has districts in transformation
Porta Nuova, CityLife, and Scalo Romana demonstrate the strength of the Milanese real estate market. This very ability to attract investment highlights the contrast with older buildings even further.
The challenge is to prevent innovation from producing pristine islands surrounded by depreciating stock. Regeneration must become widespread.
Regulations can accelerate or block
Changes of use, urban planning standards, parking requirements, and zoning restrictions dictate how easily an owner can repurpose a property. Rules designed for a city of the past can make it economically unfeasible to adapt buildings to new demands.
Streamlining does not mean eliminating oversight. It means establishing proportionate procedures that distinguish speculation from redevelopment.
The risk is a new form of periphery in the city centre
A vacant building generates less street-level activity, lower perceived safety, and reduced revenue for surrounding amenities. If multiple properties enter decline at the same time, even central areas can lose their vitality.
The office issue is therefore an urban problem, not merely a real estate one.
Investors must accept that value is not guaranteed
For decades, a prime address could offset many inefficiencies. Today, companies and workers are more selective. Assets that fail to upgrade may face a “brown discount”, while efficient ones command a premium.
This shifts capital toward redevelopment, but it can also leave behind property owners lacking sufficient resources.
The 86% is above all a signal of scale
The percentage should not be interpreted as a forecast that nearly all Milanese offices will become obsolete. It indicates that a massive share will need to be upgraded to remain competitive. This is a substantial difference: the issue is not inevitable abandonment, but the necessary investment.
In recent years, Milano has built a significant portion of its growth on real estate. The next phase could be less spectacular but more decisive: opening worksites inside existing buildings, replacing systems, repurposing functions, and once again filling spaces that the city has already paid for. True urban innovation might not be the next skyscraper, but preventing the one built thirty years ago from becoming real estate waste.
