Stranded Assets Part Four: Before the Architects Arrive
Defining what a building needs to be
There is a pattern we see repeatedly. A council identifies a stranded asset. There is pressure to act, from members, from the public, from funding deadlines. An architect is appointed. Designs are produced. And then, sometimes months into the process, someone asks a question that should have been answered at the start.
How many covers does the café need to break even? Where do deliveries come in on market days? What happens to the community space if the anchor tenant leaves? Who is going to pay for the upkeep of the building? Who is going to be the tenant? Is there enough cellar space for a proper bar, or are we already committed to bottles only (which rarely make money)?
These are not design questions. They are operational and commercial questions. And when they surface late, the answers are expensive. Redesigns. Abortive fees. Schemes that get built and then struggle from day one because the building was shaped around an idea that was never properly tested.
The problem is not the architects. The problem is asking them to design a building before anyone has defined what it actually needs to do.
The missing stage
Between "we want to do something with this building" and "here is the design" sits a stage that is often skipped or compressed beyond usefulness. This is the stage where the concept is defined, tested, and translated into a brief that a design team can actually work from, not just a business case to gain the funding.
A proper brief is not a wish list. It is not "we want a community hub with flexible space and a café." That describes an ambition, not a building. A proper brief sets out the mix of uses, the operational model, the revenue assumptions, the servicing requirements, the relationships between different functions, and the practical constraints that the design must accommodate.
As we explored in our previous article on viability, a concept grounded in evidence is far harder to dismiss, and far less likely to unravel once detailed design begins. But evidence alone is not enough. It must be translated into specifications that shape the physical building.
This translation work is not architectural. It sits before architecture. And when it is done well, it transforms what follows.
Bringing public and private together
Stranded assets do not always sit in single ownership, and they are not always solved by a single sector. Some of the most effective projects bring together public and private interests, a council seeking regeneration outcomes, a private landlord seeking a return, an operator seeking a viable site.
These partnerships can unlock buildings that neither party could tackle alone. A council might lack the capital or the risk appetite. A private landlord might lack the access to public funding or the community relationships. An operator might have the concept and the capability but not the building.
The challenge is alignment. Each party has different objectives, different constraints, different definitions of success. A private landlord needs a return. A council needs social value and political defensibility. An operator needs a building that works commercially and a lease they can afford.
This is where early-stage commercial work becomes essential. Modelling the operator's business case shows what rent levels are realistic. Testing demand shows what uses the market will support and the local community needs. Developing the funding case shows what gap funding might be available and on what terms. Structuring the deal shows how risk and reward can be shared in a way that works for everyone.
Without this groundwork, public-private conversations often stall. The council suspects the landlord is seeking subsidy for a commercially viable scheme. The landlord suspects the council wants outcomes the market cannot deliver. The operator is caught in the middle, unsure whether the opportunity is real.
With the right analysis, these conversations become more productive. The numbers are on the table. The constraints are understood. And the discussion shifts from suspicion to problem-solving.
Why this matters for funding
Most public funding for stranded assets now requires a business case. For programmes like Pride in Place or the Heritage Revival Fund, that means a case compliant with the Green Book – demonstrating a clear articulation of the problem, an assessment of options, a robust commercial case, and a credible delivery and operating model.
Operating models, as we covered earlier in this series, shape everything from the mix of uses to the governance structure to the long-term financial sustainability of a project. A business case that cannot answer questions about ownership, management, and revenue is a business case that will struggle to compete.
This means the commercial and operational thinking cannot wait until after design. It must come first. It must inform the brief. And it must be rigorous enough to withstand scrutiny from funders who have learned, often painfully, what happens when it is not.
What a brief actually needs to contain
A design brief for a stranded asset should go far beyond the schedule of accommodation. It should set out:
The mix of uses and how they relate to each other. Which uses generate income? Which require subsidy? How do they share space, and what are the pinch points – servicing, access, noise, trading hours?
The operational assumptions. Who runs each element? What are their requirements – kitchen extraction, storage, back-of-house facilities, staff areas? What flexibility do they need, and what constraints can they live with?
The revenue model. How many covers, how many desks, how many stalls, how many tickets? What occupancy rates are realistic? What happens if they are not achieved?
The occupier's requirements. What rent can they afford? What fit-out will they need, and who pays for it? What lease terms make the operation viable? What service charge assumptions are baked into their business model?
The servicing and logistics. Where do deliveries arrive? Where do bins go? How do traders load in for events? These questions sound mundane until you discover the answers were never designed for.
The phasing and flexibility. Can the building open in stages? Can uses change over time without major structural work? What happens if the anchor tenant does not materialise?
None of this is about telling architects how to design. It is about giving them the information they need to design well.
Learning from what works – and what does not
Most councils approach a stranded asset as a one-off problem. They assemble a team, develop a scheme, and learn as they go. By the time the lessons are clear, the project is built and the team has moved on.
We see things differently. Working on and visiting dozens of sites – market halls, food halls, heritage buildings, civic assets, commercial conversions – we see the same questions arise repeatedly. We see which approaches work and which fall short. We see the design decisions that cause problems years later, and the operational choices that make buildings thrive.
The patterns become visible: what traders actually need, what café sizes are viable, what servicing arrangements cause bottlenecks, what lease structures operators can sustain, what mixed-use combinations create synergy and which create conflict.
We also learn from what goes wrong. Not every project we have seen has succeeded. Some have struggled with footfall. Some have lost anchor tenants. Some have discovered, too late, that the operating model could not sustain the building. These experiences are as valuable as the successes, sometimes more so. They inform the questions we ask early, the assumptions we challenge, and the scenarios we stress-test before anyone commits to a direction.
This is not about importing a template from elsewhere. Every building is different. Every town has its own dynamics. But best practice in design and operation is transferable, and knowing what has worked – and why – is one of the most useful things we bring to a project.
Why architects want this work done
Good architects do not want to guess at operational requirements. They do not want to produce designs that are then unpicked because someone forgot about cellar access or underestimated bin storage. They do not want to be blamed when a building opens and immediately hits problems that were baked in before they ever picked up a pencil.
What they want is a client who knows what they need. A brief that is specific enough to design from and flexible enough to allow creative solutions. A commercial and operational logic that has been tested, so the design team can focus on design rather than trying to reverse-engineer answers to questions they are not best placed to answer.
This is not about competition between consultants. It is about sequencing. The first article in this series set out why stranded assets need more than architectural skill and imagination – they need someone to define what comes next. That definition work makes the architecture better. It reduces abortive costs. It strengthens funding bids. And it produces buildings that actually work.
The details that determine success
We have seen schemes where a food hall was designed without enough extraction for the intended tenants. Where a workspace was built with a single goods lift that created a bottleneck every morning. Where a community café was given twelve covers when it needed thirty to break even. Where a market hall had no realistic route for traders to load in without blocking the main entrance.
These are not design failures. They are briefing failures. They happen when the operational reality of a building is not understood before the design is fixed. And they are very difficult to remedy once construction is underway.
The projects that work are those where someone sat down, before the architects arrived, and thought through how the building would actually function. Not in abstract terms, but in the specific, sometimes tedious detail that determines whether a place thrives or quietly struggles.
Where we sit
Our role is to do this thinking. We work with councils and landlords to define what a building needs to become - commercially, operationally, and socially - before design work begins. We test demand, model viability, develop operating structures, and translate all of this into briefs that design teams can work from.
We develop both sides of the business case: the funding case that satisfies grant requirements, and the operator's case that ensures the building can sustain itself. Where projects involve multiple parties – public and private, landlord and occupier – we help structure conversations and model outcomes so that everyone understands what is realistic.
We bring the benefit of experience across a wide portfolio of projects, learning what works, adapting best practice, and applying lessons that would otherwise take years to accumulate. Not every problem is new. Many have been solved before, in other places, and that knowledge is part of what we offer.
Once the brief is set, we can help assemble the right design team, or work alongside teams already in place. We review designs as they develop to ensure the operational requirements are being met. And we stay involved through delivery, because the gap between a good concept and a working building is where many projects lose their way.
If you are preparing plans for a stranded asset and want to ensure the groundwork is right before the architects arrive, we would welcome a conversation.
