Expansion into new cities requires more than the right property

The origin of the decision also helps indicate whether a company is genuinely prepared to enter a new city or is simply reacting to a commercial opportunity. 

According to Matarangas, more structured organizations pursue smaller offices, satellite units, or franchises as part of a clear strategy for regionalization, geographic growth, or entry into new markets. The process is usually centralized, with a focus on maintaining the standards established by headquarters. 

“Companies that are ready to expand usually arrive with a consistent standard. They are already sizable organizations looking for smaller offices, satellite units, or franchises, driven by a clear strategy of geographic growth, regionalization, or entry into new markets,” he explains. 

The opposite scenario occurs when the expansion begins with a specific property or commercial condition, before the company has defined how the new unit will be implemented and managed. 

“The opportunity may even be a good one, but without that underlying structure, the risk of frustration during execution increases significantly,” he warns.

Even a well-executed project may fail to deliver the expected results when the space is designed without considering the needs of the people who will use it.

Matarangas recalls the case of a client that prioritized event areas and spaces for receiving visitors. Although the proposal appeared suitable during the planning stage, the office ultimately proved less useful for the employees themselves and had to be redesigned.

“The first sign that something is inconsistent is precisely that: low day-to-day use of the space,” he says. “The main lesson is to clearly understand the real purpose of the space and the needs of those who already use it every day before designing an office that looks good on paper but does not solve the problem of the people who will actually occupy it.”

Even a well-executed project may fail to deliver the expected results when the space is designed without considering the needs of the people who will use it. 

Matarangas recalls the case of a client that prioritized event areas and spaces for receiving visitors. Although the proposal appeared suitable during the planning stage, the office ultimately proved less useful for the employees themselves and had to be redesigned. 

“The first sign that something is inconsistent is precisely that: low day-to-day use of the space,” he says. “The main lesson is to clearly understand the real purpose of the space and the needs of those who already use it every day before designing an office that looks good on paper but does not solve the problem of the people who will actually occupy it.”