1. What’s the next big innovation or development in the built environment that you’re most looking forward to?
For me, the most meaningful innovation in the built environment is not a single technology, but the way we manage and reposition existing assets.
Across Europe new development is mostly structurally constrained, while regulatory, societal and economic pressures on existing buildings are increasing. As a result, the greatest opportunity lies in intelligent retrofit or repurposing and active asset management, especially in offices, residential and mixed‑use assets in supply‑constrained markets.
What is of most interest to me is the convergence of better data to inform decisions, pragmatic and value‑focused ESG implementation and disciplined capital allocation.
This is not about disruption for its own sake. It is an evolutionary shift that will increasingly separate resilient, future‑proof assets from those that risk becoming obsolete and that is where long‑term, risk‑adjusted returns will be generated.
2. What have younger team members pushed you to rethink?
I believe that investment decisions are rarely black and white, that has always been central to how I think about risk and cycles. What younger colleagues have pushed me to rethink is how deliberately we teach that mindset, and how we approach uncertainty.
Where younger colleagues have added real value is in the expectation of transparency: they want to understand the rationale behind decisions, not just the conclusion. That has made me more intentional about encouraging teams to debate multiple viewpoints, because investing is fundamentally about balancing competing arguments rather than hunting for a single “right” answer.
They also bring a strong familiarity with data and AI tools. While this is very useful, it has reinforced an important point: data supports judgement, it doesn’t replace it.
3. What would need to change for more women to reach partner level in the built environment industry?
I would widen the frame beyond women and men. The real goal is leadership teams that are genuinely diverse, in background, age, experience and perspective, as well as gender, because real estate is a complex and cyclical asset class that is exposed to “unknowns” and can benefit from a diverse worldview.
To get there, we need to change three things:
- How we define “partner potential.” Too often, progression rewards a narrow profile including constant availability, one career path, one style of confidence. Senior decisions improve when we value different strengths like long‑term risk judgement, stakeholder management, operational resilience, and the ability to challenge assumptions constructively.
- How we build the pipeline. Diverse talent needs earlier access to real responsibility such as investment exposure, committee participation, client dialogue and not just support roles. Additionally, sponsorship matters: leaders have to actively create those moments, not wait for “perfect readiness.”
- How we design careers for longevity. The industry is learning that performance is best measured over cycles. If we want diverse teams, we need career models that accommodate different life stages and still lead to the top.
4. Europe has set some of the world’s most ambitious sustainability objectives for real estate. Where do you see the strongest opportunities to better align sustainability ambition with investable, risk‑adjusted returns today?
I think the biggest opportunity to refine risk pricing is in areas where the market is moving from “beta” to “skill”, where returns will be driven by income durability, asset quality and active management, not broad yield compression.
Three areas stand out:
- Offices: Especially the bifurcation between future‑proof and “stranded” Investors are getting better at pricing the risk of obsolescence: location quality, re‑letting prospects, capex needs, and regulatory alignment. In five years’ time, what will look well‑judged is a willingness to underwrite real repositioning and not pretend that every office is “prime” simply because it used to be. This ties directly to the current environment where income and stock selection matter most.
- Residential: Particularly in supply‑constrained European cities. In Germany, the structural undersupply and the gap between completion levels and housing targets make the living sector attractive, with clear value‑add potential through retrofitting outdated stock. In five years, disciplined capital deployment into quality living assets based on realistic underwriting of regulatory and operating risks will look prescient.
- Sectors shaped by modern occupier fundamentals, like logistics: Institutional investors have become more sophisticated in pricing tenant covenant, lease structure and micro‑location dynamics. What will look right in hindsight is not simply “owning logistics,” but owning the right logistics where cash flow resilience and supply constraints support income. Across all three, the common thread is that we are in a cycle where income is the dominant driver of returns and where underwriting needs to treat real estate as an active business, not a passive allocation.
