Why the “Best” Site Is Often the Wrong One – Strategic Fit vs. Technical Perfection

In real estate, the word “best” gets used a lot. Best location. Best access. Best visibility. Best zoning.

Yet, in the advisory realm, some of the most problematic projects start with a site everyone agrees is “the best.” The irony? The technically superior site is often the strategically wrong one.

Here’s why.

The myth of the “Perfect Site”

A “best” site is usually defined by certain criteria: prime frontage, generous size, strong planning controls, and excellent connectivity.

On paper, it ticks every box. But real estate development decisions don’t succeed on paper alone. They succeed when the site aligns with business strategy, timing, capital structure, and risk appetite.

When those factors are ignored, the “best” site becomes an expensive distraction.

Strategic fit matters more than technical excellence

A site can be objectively excellent and still fundamentally misaligned. For example:

• A flagship location may be unnecessary for a cost-focused operating model

• A large site may lock a development into excess capital expenditure

• A high-profile address may increase exposure to market volatility without improving returns

The right site is not the one with the most upside, it’s the one that best supports how the organisation actually operates.

Complexity is a hidden cost

Prime sites often come with prime complications such as more stakeholders, longer approval pathways, greater design expectations, and higher holding and opportunity costs.

What looks like optional upside frequently becomes mandatory complexity. Timelines stretch, contingencies grow, and decision-making slows.

Meanwhile, simpler sites, often dismissed early, can deliver faster outcomes with less execution risk. In advisory, we often see value destroyed not by poor locations, but by overly complex ones.

Timing can trump location

Market timing is unforgiving. A premium site acquired at the wrong point in the cycle can underperform for years, regardless of its fundamentals. Conversely, a “second-tier” site secured early, developed efficiently, and aligned with demand can outperform expectations.

The best site today may only become operational, or profitable, when the market has already moved on.

Optionality beats perfection

Strategic flexibility is one of the most undervalued site attributes. Sites that allow staged development, alternative uses, and partial exit strategies often outperform rigid “perfect” sites that only work if everything goes exactly to plan. In an uncertain market, optionality is a competitive advantage.

Reframing the question

Instead of asking “Is this the best site available?”, better questions are “Does this site support our long-term strategy?”, “What risks does it introduce—not just what benefits?”, and “How resilient is this site to change?”.  Strategic advisory is less about finding the best site and more about finding the right one.

In real estate development, “best” is often a technical judgment. “Right” is a strategic one.

And strategy, not perfection, is what ultimately delivers value, which is why it is of the utmost importance to ensure you have advisory partners onboard who will be able to correctly guide you.