A commercial property management executive in Houston named Seth Eslami got tired of watching the same cycle. A tenant moves in. The landlord spends $30 to $40 per square foot building out the space. Custom walls, conference rooms, lighting, HVAC zoning. A few years later, the tenant leaves.

Then someone gets paid to rip it all out. Haul it to a dumpster. And the landlord starts over.

"It's like we just spent $200K in here," Eslami told Bisnow, "and we have to go pay somebody to destroy this and throw it away and build it all over again."

His solution is ClarityCastle, a brand of modular office pods. Phone booths, private offices, small conference rooms. They install in under two hours, hold in place magnetically, and start at $3,000. Premium models run $12,000. When a tenant leaves, the pods stay, move, get resold, or get a fresh PVC wrap and look new.

He installed 10 of them at Greentown Labs in Houston's Ion District. Turned a former supermarket storage room into leasable flex space. All 10 leased immediately. A traditional build-out would have taken nine months and cost hundreds of thousands. Greentown's Boston location saw photos and ordered 15 more.

Ten pods in one location is a proof of concept, not a business. But here's what caught me: the commercial office industry has known the TI cycle is wasteful for decades. Solutions exist. Several of them. So why does the default remain build, demolish, repeat?

SpaceX had the same problem with a different material. Before SpaceX, rocket boosters were single-use. Not because the physics required it. Because the industry had never seriously challenged the premise. NASA and its contractors had been throwing away boosters after every launch for decades. ULA's Atlas V and Delta IV Heavy ran $100 million or more per flight, all expendable.

Musk's Algorithm Step 3 (from Eric Jorgenson's The Book of Elon ) is "simplify and optimize." Rocket manufacturers had spent decades optimizing the single-use model: lighter materials, better fuel efficiency, cheaper manufacturing. They optimized a bad process instead of questioning whether the process should exist at all.

Office TI runs on the same embedded assumption. Walls are permanent. When the tenant leaves, the walls come down. Five strategies have emerged to fight the cycle. They sit on a spectrum from "build a cheaper booster and drop it in the ocean" to "build the Falcon 9" to "stop launching rockets entirely."

Before walking through them, one thing any modular alternative has to contend with: TI allowances aren't just construction budgets. They're deal-closing tools. A tenant's broker packages them as signing incentives. The landlord amortizes them into rent. TI is a currency in a leasing negotiation, and the waste is a side effect of using that currency, not the purpose of the spend. Any alternative has to answer: can the same deal close with a different currency?

White boxing and second-generation space. Two responses that accept the cycle and try to make it cheaper. White boxing strips the space back to infrastructure after a tenant leaves and hands the next tenant a blank canvas for $5 to $20/sf of finishing cost versus $30 to $100+ for a cold grey shell. Re-leasing as second-gen space skips the demo entirely by finding a tenant who can live with the previous layout, usually at a rent discount. Both lower the cost per turn. Neither breaks the cycle.

Spec suites. Pre-built, move-in-ready space designed without a specific tenant in mind. Cushman & Wakefield reports that ready-to-show suites lease up to 50% faster than raw shell. In Texas, spec suites lease about 4.5 months faster, up from a historical average of 3 months (per Partners Real Estate research). Batching multiple suites on the same floor pushes costs below the $30/sf TI allowance norm through economies of scale. But misread the market and the money sits empty. And when the tenant eventually leaves, you're back to demo, haul, rebuild.

Demountable walls. Here's where the Falcon 9 parallel gets concrete. Full-height modular partitions: aluminum or steel frames, interchangeable glass or laminate panels, installed in one to three days. They reconfigure, relocate, and reuse without demolition.

Upfront cost runs higher than drywall. But these walls classify as furniture and fixtures under Section 179, depreciating over 7 years instead of 39 for traditional leasehold improvements. Qualifying owner-operators can potentially expense them in year one. When a tenant leaves, you reconfigure instead of demolish. Same function. Reusable. A booster that lands itself.

Acoustics vary by product and cheap systems fall short. Fire separation requirements vary by jurisdiction. Lenders and appraisers may treat demountable walls differently than traditional build-out when valuing the property. Higher-end systems solve these problems, but they push the cost closer to drywall on any single installation. Where the savings compound is over multiple tenant turns.

Napkin math. 5,000 SF suite. Twenty-year hold. Three tenant turns. Drywall at $40/sf per turn: $600,000 total, with most of the first two rounds ending up in a dumpster. Demountable walls at $55/sf installed once, with $5/sf reconfiguration per turn: $325,000 total. Delta: $275,000 before any tax acceleration. Numbers vary by market. Directional math is hard to argue over a long hold.

Modular pods. ClarityCastle sits here. Pods convert tenant improvement from a construction project into a portable, depreciable asset. They install in hours and move with the tenant or stay with the building.

When The Wharf in D.C. looked at a competitor's pods a few years ago, they passed. Prices were "well into the five figures" and the ROI timeline was too long. ClarityCastle's $3K to $12K range targets that objection directly. But pods don't replace a build-out. They replace phone booths and huddle rooms. For that slice of the market, the math works.

Eslami's framing is the sharpest thing he said: "It kind of changes the whole office concept from being a project to an asset."

Landlord-operated flex. Instead of building for a specific tenant, the landlord keeps permanent control and monetizes flexibility directly. After WeWork's collapse, this accelerated. Industrious and Serendipity Labs moved to nearly 100% management agreements. U.S. coworking locations grew 15% in a single year, from roughly 7,800 in January 2025 to nearly 9,000 by January 2026 (per Yardi Kube).

TI vanishes because the landlord never hands the space over. But flex requires operational capability most landlords don't have, and retention runs structurally lower. One landlord in New York operates his own coworking floor as a loss leader, losing money on it but using it to incubate startups who eventually sign real leases elsewhere in the building. Not launching the rocket at all. Keeping the hardware on the ground and letting people rent time on it.

Five strategies on a spectrum. Reusable construction technology exists. Tax code incentivizes it. Cost math favors it over multiple tenant turns. And drywall remains the default.

Why? Partly status quo. Drywall is baked into every lease template, building code, lender model, and GC bid. Choosing anything else means opting out at every decision point, and Johnson and Goldstein's research on organ donation defaults showed that simply switching from opt-in to opt-out changes participation from under 15% to over 90%. Defaults are that powerful.

Partly incentives. Property managers get paid to oversee construction. Leasing brokers close deals by packaging TI dollars. Neither role has a financial reason to recommend something that eliminates the process they profit from. Nobody's acting in bad faith. The incentive structure just points one direction.

And partly the structure of who decides. SpaceX broke through because Musk controlled both the capital and the engineering decisions and was willing to absorb early failures. Commercial office has a fragmented ownership structure where the person who bears the long-term cost (the owner), the person who makes the construction decision (the property manager), the person who packages TI into the deal (the leasing broker), and the person who profits from the construction (the GC) are four different people. Munger called it a lollapalooza when multiple forces compound in the same direction. That's what's happening here.

I don't know if ClarityCastle breaks through. Product is early, proof is thin, and scaling against entrenched construction is hard. Nobody's ripping drywall out of their entire building next year. What actually happens first is probably a hybrid: demountable walls for interior partitions, permanent construction for demising walls and core, pods for phone booths and huddle rooms. One floor. One building. See what happens over two tenant turns.

But someone is going to crack this. Office TI is one of the most wasteful recurring spends in commercial real estate, and the Falcon 9 equivalent already exists on the shelf. Will it be a startup like ClarityCastle that prices low enough to get in the door? A national demountable wall manufacturer that figures out how to sell to landlords instead of tenants? A large owner-operator who runs the experiment internally and publishes the results?

However it happens, someone has to be willing to stop throwing away the booster.

Sharing the Bisnow article below.

https://www.bisnow.com/houston/news/office/cre-startup-founder-wants-modular-pods-to-stop-the-office-build-out-cycle-134011