Report

Battle for prime office space: smaller, yet more expensive and scarce

An analysis of the 100 largest office relocations in recent years

May 27, 2025 9 Minute Read

By Sam Elders

A close shot of an urban street with tall buildings close together.

Looking for a PDF of this content?

After several years of hybrid working, there are many numbers and theories circulating about its impact. For instance, large organisations would move en masse to smaller offices. Our analysis of relocations tells a different story. Companies are mostly moving to more sustainable locations that align with their image, workforce and way of working. In other words: quality over quantity. As a result, demand, housing burden and rental prices in the office market are rising. Yet, there is a lack of long-term vision. And that is precisely what is needed now for a future-proof housing strategy.

From emergency measure to new reality

We all know that the office needs of Dutch companies have changed considerably since the COVID-19 pandemic. From 2020 onwards, hybrid working became the new standard. Last year, CBRE already published a report on different corresponding strategies being adopted, and what they mean for business operations. Hybrid working affects where people work, and therefore naturally also the housing choices companies make - both in location, size and layout.

Strategic paralysis

A long-term vision is essential for a future-proof housing strategy. Yet this is precisely what many organisations lack. The result: stagnating dynamics in the office market. Companies are holding back and looking no more than one or two years ahead. This is due to several reasons:

  1. Economic and geopolitical uncertainty makes companies cautious and leads them to postpone major investments.
  2. There is uncertainty surrounding the return to the office: for a long time, working from home part of the week seemed to be the norm, but recently people have been returning to the office more frequently. Combined with rising construction and fit-out costs, this makes companies reluctant to make definitive decisions about accommodation and office design.

Due to structurally lower occupancy rates, large companies have scaled down their office use since 2020. As a result, the take-up volume of large office spaces (> 1,500 sq m) has dropped from an average of 71.5% to 66.4%.

From large to small, small to large

Although the dynamics in the office market remain subdued, our data does show some movement. On average, companies with more than 200 employees are relocating to offices that are 7.5% smaller than the space they leave behind. This is then filled by smaller companies with up to 100 employees, who – remarkably – are moving into larger office spaces.

Average vacated floor space after relocation (2022-2025 Q1), all registered relocations

Leased floor area as a percentage of vacated floor area

Range

Vacated floor area

Average

Low

High

Sum of increase/ decrease in office demand

<500 sq m

127%

0%

185%

37,015

500-1,000 sq m

56%

-4%

88%

56,337

1,000-1,500 sq m

48%

0%

92%

40,900

1,500-3,000 sq m

9%

-27%

36%

19,760

3,000-5,000 sq m

-8%

-32%

13%

-18,620

>5,000 sq m

-7%

-30%

10%

-108,354

Source: CBRE Research


CBRE's analysis of all relocations in recent years also shows clear outliers, both upwards and downwards. Yet the average shows that certainly not all large companies have radically opted for smaller offices since 2022. A more in-depth analysis of the 100 largest relocations in the recent period reveals four clear trends.

TREND 1

Accessibility: more talent and fewer emissions

As predicted more often: Central locations near intercity hubs are becoming increasingly popular. More and more companies are relocating to the heart of major cities, close to centrally located train stations – and for several reasons. Firstly, central locations attract talent from across the country more easily. In other words: the better the accessibility, the larger the talent pool. Another key driver is sustainability. Since the introduction of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), companies are required to report on their environmental impact – including CO₂ emissions from commuting. By choosing a more central location and encouraging public transport use through mobility planning, fewer employees need to travel by car.

Difference in accessibility, expressed in accessible workforce, all transactions

Accessible workforce

Old office location

New office location

%

Accessible by car (45 min)

3.331.144

3.759.096

13%

Accessible by bike (15 min)

273.986

318.721

16%

Accessible by public transport (45 min)

736.026

848.050

15%

Source: CBRE Research


When relocating, companies typically opt for locations that are more accessible to a larger group of employees. On average, these locations are easier to reach by car (+13%), bicycle (+16%), and public transport (+15%).

IN PRACTICE

PGGM moves towards future talent

Pension fund administrator PGGM will relocate its office from Zeist to a location near Utrecht Central Station at the end of 2027. While the current office along the A28 motorway has always been easily accessible by car, research into the profile of PGGM’s future employees revealed that this form of accessibility is becoming less attractive. These potential colleagues tend to live in the Randstad region, are less likely to own a car, and prefer to work in a vibrant environment. To remain an attractive employer, PGGM therefore opts for a lively location that is easily accessible by public transport.

The current office does not meet PGGM's own sustainability requirements for investment proposals. Sustainability therefore played an important role in the relocation decision.

Uncertainty slows down sustainability ambitions

Although some relocations have been (partly) driven by sustainability, it is also clear that many large companies are postponing their ambitions in this area. Whereas 2030 used to be the dot on the horizon, many large corporates are now shifting that deadline to 2045 or beyond. On the one hand, this is due to a proliferation of laws, targets, and certificates. On the other, a constantly changing political wind creates turmoil. As a result, both tenants and property owners lack clarity: what exactly are they required to do, and when will they be held accountable?

And even when sustainability plays a key role in the housing strategy, the question remains: are the right office spaces available? And if so, do they fit within the budget in terms of rental costs? If the answer to either of these questions is ‘no’, it becomes increasingly difficult to choose a sustainable office – no matter how much the organisation may want to.

IN PRACTICE

Limited supply of quality offices

Aegon was looking for a location right in the middle of the energy of a global centre that is easily accessible by bike, bus, train, car and plane. Due to the limited availability of top offices, finding a suitable location for this was no easy task. After more than 18 months, WTC Schiphol eventually became the new hub for Aegon Ltd and Aegon Asset Management. Not because of cost considerations, but because there was room there.

TREND 2

Fewer square metres, higher rents

In addition to choosing more central locations, companies that relocate usually also opt for newer, more sustainable buildings than before. As a result, rental prices often increase. Although large companies are seeking smaller office spaces, this does not mean they are reducing costs. On the contrary: corporates trade offices with an average rent of €277 per sq m for a location with an average rent of €352 per sq m – a 27% increase. This shows that large corporates are prioritising quality. In other words: a more sustainable and healthier office where employees enjoy working. This makes them more attractive to talent and contributes to social value.

At the bottom line, these relocations do not result in cost savings, but rather in an increase in total housing costs. An investment that companies recoup in the long run by working efficiently and by attracting and retaining talent.

TREND 3

Less individual, more together

Although we are seeing employees returning to the office more frequently, home remains the primary place for focus tasks. As a result, there is less need for individual workstations in the office. This trend emerged in the early 2000s with the introduction of new working, but it has become even more apparent with the rise of hybrid working. Some twenty years ago, the ratio between individual workstations and meeting spaces was 70/30. In other words, 70% of the floor space was allocated to individual workstations, and 30% to shared spaces. CBRE expects this ratio to be around 40/60 by 2030. By then, offices will consist of approximately 60% (in)formal meeting spaces.

Keep fine-tuning

Finding the ideal workplace mix remains a challenge. It requires a tailored approach that aligns with the type of company, its employees, and its work culture. Practice confirms this: companies that have recently redesigned their office spaces often quickly soon find that their layout is not right and that they have too many individual workstations. Desks today are used more as coat racks: at the start of the day employees drop off their belongings, moving from one meeting room to the next. Consequently, they see the desk primarily as a basecamp, but the actual use of that workplace is sometimes very limited.

IN PRACTICE

Rapidly changing dynamics at Booking.com

About three years ago, Booking.com's new campus in Amsterdam was completed - at the time, the prime example of an office that perfectly facilitates hybrid working. Now that employees are increasingly finding their hybrid niche, we see that the working environment is being used differently than expected. This means less use of individual workstations, more use of workstations in the atrium and a shortage of small spaces - for calling, focusing or one-to-one collaboration. This marks the search for the right balance of the mix of spaces in the office and the need to continue to critically monitor accommodation.


TREND 4

Spacious floors for more connection

For many employees, ‘home’ has now become the primary workplace. The office is where they go to meet, collaborate, and innovate. The ideal occupancy rate for this is between 60% and 80%. Anything above that is too crowded, forcing colleagues to compete for a workplace. If the occupancy rate is lower, the office loses its liveliness and thus its added value.

As the function of the office changes, organisations are also placing different demands on its structure and layout. A notable trend is the preference for larger floor areas per floor. The analysis shows that, on average, floor sizes increase from 1,800 sq m to 2,100 sq m. This reflects a desire for more — both horizontal and vertical — connection. By bringing all business activities together on a single floor, collaboration and spontaneous encounters happen more naturally. Physical barriers like stairs and lifts hinder these interactions, so they are kept to a minimum. After all, they can put a brake on collaboration and innovation — two crucial functions of the modern office. If multiple floors are necessary, efforts are still made to maximise the connection between them, for example through an open atrium.

IN PRACTICE

Many brands, but one Arla identity

A striking example of an employer using the work environment to foster connection and interaction is Arla. This innovative, fast-growing dairy cooperative has many brands under its name, but wanted a single Arla workplace strategy — both at its campus in Aarhus, Denmark, and at its office in Utrecht. The aim: to connect colleagues with each other, the brand, and all its products. Here, it’s not so much about floor space, but about connection — enabling colleagues to complement and strengthen one another, and to feel part of something bigger.

Trends predict a shortage of quality office space

The four trends above touch on different themes: some relate to square footage, others to location or sustainability. But all of them say something about the type of office space that more and more organisations are seeking. And that type is becoming scarce — contrary to what is often assumed. This scarcity is already evident today, and only a limited number of high-quality buildings are being added.

So, anyone who wants to secure a modern, accessible office in the future — one that suits new ways of working and appeals to the right talent — will need a solid housing strategy. Not with a one- or two-year horizon, but one that looks five to ten years ahead. Consider where you want to be by then, and make well-informed decisions based on that long-term vision. If you don’t, you risk making poor housing choices or missing out entirely in the search for the ideal office.

Related insights

Item 0 Item 0 Item 0 Item 0 Item 0 Item 0