Three years into widespread hybrid work, the evidence is clear: office occupancy patterns have permanently changed. And that has real implications for lighting.

I’ve been redesigning lighting for several office retrofits where the brief wasn’t “we want new lights” but “we want lighting that works for how we actually use the space now.”

The Occupancy Reality

Typical CBD office pre-2020:

• 80-95% occupancy Monday to Friday
• Predictable patterns (empty before 8am, peak at 10am-3pm, empty by 7pm)
• Consistent floor-by-floor usage

Typical CBD office now:

• 40-60% average occupancy
• Tuesday-Wednesday peak, Monday and Friday quiet
• Significant variation by floor and zone
• Some floors barely used on quiet days

This isn’t every office. Some have returned to full occupancy. But enough have this pattern that it’s changed how I think about lighting design.

Why This Matters for Lighting

The traditional approach was uniform lighting. Design for peak occupancy, keep lights on during business hours, done.

That’s now wasteful. Running full lighting for a floor with three people doesn’t make sense—economically or environmentally.

But you can’t just turn lights off. Scattered occupants still need adequate light. Psychological comfort matters. You don’t want people working in dim caves feeling like the building is abandoned.

What Works: Zone-Based Control

The most effective approach I’ve seen is granular zone control with intelligent defaults.

Instead of whole-floor switching, break the floor into zones of roughly 50-100m2. Each zone can operate independently based on occupancy.

Occupied zones: Full designed light levels.

Adjacent zones: Partial levels (maybe 50%) to provide visual comfort and avoid harsh transitions.

Distant unoccupied zones: Minimum levels (maybe 20%) or off, depending on the space.

This requires occupancy sensing throughout, not just at entries. And it requires controls that can orchestrate zones together rather than treating each sensor as independent.

The Sensor Placement Issue

Here’s where I see projects fail. Sensors designed for pre-hybrid occupancy don’t work well for scattered occupants.

Traditional placement: One sensor per switching zone, typically at the entry or centre.

Problem: Someone sitting at a desk in the corner might not trigger the sensor. Or they trigger it on arrival but sit still enough that the sensor times out.

Better approach: Multiple smaller sensors with overlapping coverage. Desk-mounted sensors for individual workstations. Integration with booking systems to pre-illuminate reserved spaces.

More sensors means more cost. But the energy savings from better occupancy tracking often justify it.

Daylight Harvesting Revisited

Hybrid work has made daylight harvesting more effective, interestingly.

When offices are fully occupied, people stake out positions throughout the floor. Many sit in the building’s interior, far from windows. Electric lighting has to serve them regardless of daylight availability.

With lower occupancy, people tend to gravitate toward windows. The perimeter zones often have the highest occupancy. This means daylight can displace more electric light—the people who need light are often in the areas that get natural light.

Some facilities are actively encouraging this with “daylit work zones” near windows. Lighting design supports this by providing exceptional perimeter lighting while accepting lower levels in permanently unoccupied interior zones.

The “Activity-Based Working” Convergence

Many offices transitioning to hybrid work are simultaneously adopting activity-based working (ABW) principles. No assigned desks. Different zones for different activities. People choose where to work based on their task.

ABW actually helps with lighting efficiency. People cluster in the zones they’re using. Empty zones are clearly empty. The building adapts to demand rather than lighting everything regardless.

But it requires lighting that’s actually zoned to support this. Collaboration spaces, focus areas, meeting zones—each might need different light levels and different control strategies.

Meeting Room Lighting

Here’s something I’ve noticed changing: meeting room usage patterns.

Pre-pandemic, meeting rooms were for meetings. Multiple people in the room.

Now, meeting rooms are often used for video calls by single occupants. Someone books a room for a Teams call because they need quiet and a camera-appropriate background.

Lighting implications:

• Single-person video call needs differ from group meeting needs
• Face lighting for cameras matters more
• The room might be “occupied” for hours by one person rather than 30-minute group meetings

Some clients are adding video call booths (small, one-person) as an alternative. These need different lighting than traditional meeting rooms—focused task lighting, good colour rendering for cameras, low glare.

Energy Management Integration

For buildings taking this seriously, lighting becomes part of broader energy management.

If the building management system knows floor 4 is mostly empty today (from booking data, access control, whatever), it can reduce not just lighting but HVAC to that floor.

This kind of integrated building intelligence goes beyond what most lighting contractors handle. It’s where AI consultants Brisbane and similar building technology specialists add value—connecting lighting, HVAC, access, and other systems into coordinated responses.

But it starts with having the lighting control granularity to participate in that integration.

Retrofit Considerations

If you’re retrofitting an existing office for hybrid work patterns:

Audit actual usage first: Don’t assume. Install temporary monitoring or analyse access data to understand real occupancy patterns.

Zone for flexibility: Break large lighting zones into smaller ones. Even if you don’t use granular control immediately, the infrastructure exists.

Upgrade sensors: Replace basic PIR with sensors that detect seated occupants, not just walking movement.

Consider the quiet day scenario: Design lighting for both Tuesday at 2pm (busy) and Friday at 4pm (quiet). Both should feel appropriate.

Don’t forget after-hours: Cleaners, security, after-hours workers need safe navigation without lighting empty floors fully.

The Cost-Benefit Reality

More sophisticated control means higher upfront cost. Is it justified?

The maths depends on:

• Electricity costs (higher prices favour efficiency investment)
• Occupancy patterns (lower and more variable occupancy means more savings potential)
• Existing infrastructure (easier if you’re replacing lighting anyway)
• Lease duration (longer tenure means more time to recoup investment)

I’ve seen retrofits pay back in 3-5 years from energy savings alone. I’ve also seen projects where the business case was marginal.

What I haven’t seen is anyone regret having better control capability once they have it.

Moving Forward

Hybrid work is probably permanent. The buildings that adapt their operations—including lighting—to this reality will have lower costs and happier occupants than those pretending it’s 2019.

The technology exists. The question is whether building owners and operators are prepared to invest in it.

James Thornton has been working in commercial lighting for 18 years and is based in Australia.