Show Notes
Episode Overview
In this episode of Built, Wired, and Secured, Alex Morgan speaks with Michael Harrington about one of the most common and costly blind spots in commercial real estate technology planning: designing infrastructure before anyone knows exactly who the tenant will be. In spec suites and flexible spaces, owners, operators, general contractors, IT teams, and facilities leaders often have to make foundational decisions early. The challenge is that power needs, cabling demands, metering expectations, and network requirements can change dramatically once a tenant arrives.
The discussion centers on a practical question Michael asks every time he walks a riser room: what breaks if this goes down, and who takes the risk when tenants show up with surprises? That framing sets up the entire episode. The goal is not to overspend for the sake of overbuilding. It is to make informed choices that reduce the odds of outages, emergency retrofits, tenant disputes, and expensive turnover delays.
Why Shared Infrastructure Fails in Spec Spaces
The episode opens with a realistic failure scenario. A growing tenant moves into a spec suite, installs racks and power-hungry equipment, and within a week a backup feeder trips. Main building power is still available, but a riser circuit fails because it was never expected to carry the tenant's actual load. The result is lost connectivity, a scrambling facilities team, and a move-in that turns into a headline expense instead of a success story.
Michael explains that these failures usually start with assumptions made long before move-in. Teams may assume low power density, minimal riser expansion, or simple shared services. Those assumptions can feel reasonable during design, but they become brittle once a tenant needs more than the base model anticipated.
- Average office power density assumptions may not fit server rooms, labs, or equipment-heavy spaces.
- Riser capacity is often sized with very little spare breaker availability.
- Shared systems may be planned without clear tenant demarcation.
- Backbones may include too few spare fiber strands.
- Designers may assume tenants will not need public IPs, redundant fiber, or dedicated meter feeds.
A Practical Framework for Overprovisioning vs. Lean Design
A major theme in the episode is the tension between building in extra capacity now versus minimizing first cost and protecting rentable square footage. Alex frames the real-world choice clearly: either overprovision early or design lean and accept that retrofits may be needed later.
Michael recommends using a risk matrix instead of treating the decision emotionally. Teams should weigh upfront capital costs, construction time, and space impact against the cost of reactive fixes. Those reactive costs include tenant downtime, expedited material purchases, work that disrupts other occupants, and delayed lease commencement.
He offers a simple rule of thumb: if a retrofit risk could stop lease commencement or create more than two weeks of downtime, teams should bias toward extra capacity or modular designs that are easy to expand later.
Specific Thresholds Discussed in the Episode
One of the most useful parts of the conversation is the move from theory to concrete numbers. Michael shares baseline thresholds that can help teams create standards early in the project.
- Power: design for at least 25 to 30 percent spare capacity at risers and tenant distribution panels in spec suites.
- Conduits: include one additional empty 4-inch pathway per major riser.
- Fiber pathways: plan for 30 to 50 percent spare interduct or raceway count.
- Fiber strands: secure a minimum of six strands per riser.
- Redundancy: provide two fully redundant fiber paths where possible.
Michael also notes that these are not universal numbers. Buildings with lab users or technology-heavy tenants may need even higher margins. Still, the thresholds give decision makers a starting point that is much better than relying on vague assumptions.
Operations Matter as Much as Capacity
Another key point in the episode is that spare infrastructure only helps if teams can identify, validate, and operationalize it. Extra conduits and spare fiber are not enough on their own. Without documentation, testing, and clear roles, those assets can become effectively unusable when time matters most.
Michael breaks the operational side into three priorities: labeling, testing, and playbooks.
- Use uniform labeling across electrical, fiber, conduit, and access systems.
- Require a single as-built package at turnover.
- Include single-line electrical drawings, conduit maps, fiber strand counts and test results, and access control schematics.
- Acceptance-test feeders by energizing and loading them at 80 percent of expected tenant density.
- Run OTDR or loss tests on fiber to confirm spare strands are viable.
- Create a tenant onboarding playbook with defined responsibilities, permit steps, feed isolation procedures, security credential coordination, and move-in timelines.
Metering, Visibility, and Tenant Expectations
The episode also addresses metering and billing, which often become contentious when tenant loads vary. Michael's recommendation is straightforward: tenant-level metering is the safer path when variable loads are expected. It improves transparency and reduces disputes. If centralized metering is used, the building should still be designed with segregation and a path to future submeters without major demolition.
The broader takeaway is that visibility matters. Even if a building does not need every tool on day one, it should not be locked out of those options later.
Real Project Examples
Michael shares two examples that show how small early decisions can either protect a project or create expensive rework. In one mixed-use building, the team preserved a 30 percent spare breaker margin and empty interduct in every riser. When a tenant later needed redundant fiber and a dedicated utility feed for lab equipment, the work was completed in three days with no downtime.
In another property, riser space was reduced to save cost. When a tenant later needed a small server room, there was no feasible path for new conduit without opening finished ceilings. The result was multiple weeks of downtime, expedited purchasing fees, and tenant concessions.
Final Takeaways
This episode is a strong reminder that future-proofing is not about guessing every tenant requirement perfectly. It is about reducing fragility. Alex and Michael close with three direct actions listeners can take on their next project: build a risk matrix with objective thresholds, require a standardized as-built package with labeling and test results, and create a tenant onboarding playbook that can be tested with a simulated move before leases begin.
For owners and operators working in spec and flexible environments, the message is clear: a little disciplined planning upfront can prevent outages, delays, and costly retrofits later. If this episode speaks to challenges you are facing in your own buildings, listen to the full conversation and review the toolkit mentioned in the episode for templates, checklists, and sample thresholds.
Designing for the Tenant You Have Not Met Yet
Spec suites and flexible spaces create a difficult design problem. By the time owners, operators, and project teams need to make decisions about risers, feeders, conduit, fiber, metering, and shared services, the future tenant may still be unknown. That means foundational infrastructure choices are often made before anyone knows whether the space will house standard office users, equipment-heavy operations, lab functions, or tenants with redundant network and power requirements.
In this episode of Built, Wired, and Secured, Alex Morgan interviews Michael Harrington about how to future-proof shared infrastructure without turning every project into an overbuilt science experiment. The conversation stays practical. It does not assume unlimited budget, unlimited space, or perfect foresight. Instead, it focuses on decision frameworks, operational discipline, and specific thresholds that reduce the chance of painful retrofits later.
The defining question Michael uses is simple: what breaks if this goes down? That question matters because it forces design and operations teams to confront risk early. It shifts the discussion away from optimistic assumptions and toward resilience, accountability, and tenant readiness.
Where Spec and Flexible Projects Usually Go Wrong
The failure pattern described in the episode is familiar to anyone who has seen a rushed turnover unravel. A tenant moves into a ready-to-lease suite, adds racks and power-hungry equipment, and quickly exposes an infrastructure limit that was hidden during design. In the example discussed, the building's main power remained intact, but a riser circuit tripped because it was never expected to support the tenant's actual load. Connectivity was lost, facilities teams had to scramble, and a smooth lease commencement turned into a visible and expensive problem.
According to Michael, these failures rarely begin at move-in. They begin much earlier, usually with a design assumption that looked safe on paper. Common examples include:
- Assuming office-style power density when future tenants may require much more.
- Sizing risers and distribution with little spare breaker capacity.
- Planning shared networks or metering without clear tenant demarcation.
- Installing limited backbone fiber with very few spare strands.
- Assuming tenants will bring their own managed services and will not need building-supported subnetting, DHCP, public IPs, or redundancy.
Each assumption lowers upfront cost or complexity in the short term. But when a tenant arrives with different operational needs, that same assumption can trigger outages, stop-work conditions, or costly rework in finished areas.
The Real Trade-Off: Upfront Cost vs. Reactive Cost
One of the strongest points in the episode is that future-proofing should not be framed as a vague preference for “more infrastructure.” It should be framed as a risk decision. Owners often face two competing instincts. One is to overprovision now to preserve flexibility later. The other is to design lean, protect rentable area, and avoid spending capital on capacity that may never be used.
Michael's advice is to replace that debate with a risk matrix. Instead of arguing in abstract terms, teams should quantify both sides.
On the upfront side, consider capital expense, construction duration, riser and pathway space, and the potential effect on rentable square footage. On the reactive side, consider downtime, delayed lease commencement, accelerated shipping costs, field labor under pressure, disruption to other tenants, and the possibility of concessions or reputational damage.
He offers a clean rule of thumb: if a retrofit risk could stop lease commencement or cause more than two weeks of downtime, the project should generally lean toward more capacity or toward modular designs that are easier to expand later.
That is a useful business lens because it ties technical design choices directly to occupancy risk, revenue timing, and operational continuity.
Thresholds That Help Teams Make Better Decisions
The episode becomes especially valuable when Michael moves from philosophy to numbers. He shares baseline capacity thresholds that teams can use to shape standards for spec and flexible environments.
- At least 25 to 30 percent spare capacity at risers and tenant distribution panels.
- One additional empty 4-inch pathway per major riser.
- Thirty to fifty percent spare interduct or raceway count for fiber pathways.
- A minimum of six fiber strands per riser.
- Two fully redundant fiber paths where possible.
These numbers are not presented as universal rules for every asset type. Michael is clear that labs and technology-heavy tenants may require more. But the thresholds create a disciplined baseline that is far better than leaving flexibility to chance.
For owners and operators, this matters because standards create speed. A project team that has defined what “future-ready enough” means can move faster during design reviews, turnover planning, and tenant fit-out coordination.
Why Extra Capacity Alone Is Not Enough
A major operational insight in the episode is that spare capacity has limited value if no one can identify it, validate it, or safely activate it under time pressure. Many buildings technically have capacity somewhere in the system, but the documentation is fragmented, labels are inconsistent, and no one is sure which pathways are viable. In practice, that means the building behaves as if the spare capacity does not exist.
Michael points to three disciplines that prevent this problem: labeling, testing, and playbooks.
First, labeling must be uniform. That includes electrical, conduit, fiber, and access infrastructure. If the naming logic breaks from floor to floor or vendor to vendor, the building becomes harder to operate the moment an urgent change is needed.
Second, teams should require a single, complete as-built package. The episode specifically calls out single-line electrical drawings, conduit maps, fiber strand counts and test results, and access control schematics. This package should not be treated as an administrative formality. It is an operating asset.
Third, turnover should include acceptance testing. Michael recommends energizing and loading feeders at 80 percent of expected tenant density and running OTDR or loss tests on fiber to verify that spare strands are actually usable. That step turns assumptions into verified conditions.
Tenant Onboarding Is an Infrastructure Process
Another strong idea in the discussion is that tenant onboarding should be treated like an operational workflow, not an improvised set of emails once a lease is signed. Even a well-designed building can struggle if nobody has defined who pulls permits, who isolates feeds, who coordinates security credentials, or what the move-in timeline should be.
Michael recommends a tenant onboarding playbook that assigns responsibilities and establishes acceptance steps before the first real onboarding event. He goes one step further and suggests simulating a tenant move before leases begin. That kind of tabletop validation is inexpensive compared with discovering process gaps during a live turnover.
For commercial real estate leaders, this is where infrastructure planning starts to look less like a pure engineering issue and more like a governance issue. Speed, safety, and predictability come from repeatable process.
Metering and Transparency
The episode also addresses metering, which is often overlooked until billing or load disputes emerge. Michael's recommendation is direct: if you expect varied tenant loads, tenant-level metering is the safer path. It provides transparency and reduces friction. If centralized metering is used, the system should still be designed so submeters can be added later without major demolition.
That advice aligns with the broader theme of the episode. Future-proofing is not just about spare hardware. It is about preserving options and avoiding lock-in to decisions that are difficult or expensive to reverse.
What Real Outcomes Look Like
The contrast between the two project examples in the episode makes the value of modest planning easy to understand. In one mixed-use building, a 30 percent spare breaker margin and empty interduct in every riser allowed the team to add redundant fiber and a dedicated utility feed for lab equipment in three days with no downtime. In the second example, limited riser space forced disruptive rework when a tenant needed a small server room. Finished ceilings had to become part of the solution, and the owner absorbed downtime, expedited costs, and concessions.
Those examples highlight an important business truth: small design choices compound. A little extra planning at the riser, panel, pathway, and documentation level can protect lease schedules, reduce operational risk, and preserve the building's ability to adapt.
The Bottom Line
The core lesson from this episode is not that every building should be overbuilt. It is that teams should be honest about uncertainty and deliberate about where flexibility matters most. When project leaders use clear thresholds, require complete turnover documentation, validate systems through testing, and formalize tenant onboarding, they reduce the chances that a future tenant's needs will trigger avoidable downtime or expensive retrofits.
If you manage commercial real estate technology, facilities, or tenant infrastructure planning, this episode offers a straightforward framework you can apply right away. Listen to the full conversation for the examples, thresholds, and operating logic behind the approach, then use the toolkit mentioned in the episode to pressure-test your next spec or flexible space project before real tenants put it to the test.