How Commercial and Multifamily Trends are Changing Hardware Decisions

Commercial and mixed-use developments require precise hardware selection to prevent premature maintenance costs without overbuilding low-traffic openings.

• By Aubree Kirkes
• Jul 28, 2026

Commercial and multifamily buildings are being asked to do more than they did a decade ago. A specific property may now hold residential units, retail, coworking, package rooms, wellness rooms, bike storage, and controlled service corridors — each with its own demands.

Project teams are absorbing those demands under real pressure: compressed schedules, tight budgets, access control expectations, code requirements, and leaner maintenance staff. That does not make hardware selection harder for the sake of it. It makes trade-offs more important.

When the Hardware Does Not Match

A premium lock delivers little if the frame, strike, closer, or latch condition is wrong. An electronic access control system cannot rescue a door that does not close and latch. A retrofit opening may be constrained by existing frames, door preps, fire labels or available infrastructure. When the hardware does not match the opening, the cost surfaces later as service calls, premature wear, tenant complaints, inspection problems and operational disruption.

The strongest decisions balance durability, security, code compliance, serviceability, access, lifecycle value and budget realities without allowing one factor to outweigh the intent of the opening. In some cases, which may mean investing in the most robust solution. In others, it may mean selecting an application-appropriate option that preserves the required standard without overbuilding the opening.

The point is not to compromise. It is to select with more intent: matching the right lock, exit device, closer, key system, credential strategy, and service approach to how each opening will function over time.

Value Engineering Should Preserve Intent

Value engineering can genuinely add value. Owners, developers, estimators, architects, distributors, and contractors are routinely asked to evaluate alternates that keep a project aligned with budget and schedule. Done well; the process protects the project. Done poorly; it shifts risk downstream.

The deciding question is whether the alternate preserves the intent of the opening. Plans and specifications give a compliant starting point, but they rarely tell the full story of how a building will operate. Some openings demand durability over appearance; others depend on aesthetics because they shape the resident experience. A real evaluation checks grade, function, listing, finish, compatibility, warranty implications, service parts and access control integration – not just unit price.

That is where application-appropriate alternatives can play a key role. A lower-priced choice is not automatically a lower-standard option, but it does need to be evaluated carefully. The question is whether it preserves the required grade, listing, function, durability, serviceability and application fit for that opening.

When price is lower, teams should look closely at what is changing: grade, testing, listing, materials, cycle performance, function availability, finish durability, warranty, service parts, installation requirements and compatibility with the rest of the opening. If those fundamentals are preserved, a right-sized alternative may reduce unnecessary compromise. If they are not, the savings may be temporary.

In lower-demand spaces, a right-sized solution may help keep a project aligned with budget without overbuilding the opening. In higher-use, code-sensitive, or higher-risk areas, the same substitution may not be right.

When a substitution drops the opening below what the application requires, the project is not reducing costs. It is moving risk to whoever maintains the building.

Mixed-use Buildings Create Different Opening Needs

Mixed-use development continues to appeal to owners and municipalities because one property can support living, working, dining, retail, and community activity at once. From the street, the building is read as a single thing. Operationally, it is not.

What needs to latch, lock, signal, withstand traffic or support credentialed access shifts from zone to zone. A corridor in a residential wing carries different requirements than an opening between retail and residential occupancy. A stairwell, a package room and a leasing office each set their own expectations for security, durability, and maintenance.

Mixed occupancy provisions add another layer. Depending on the adopted code and the authority having jurisdiction, teams may evaluate separated, nonseparated or accessory approaches – each affecting fire resistance, egress, accessibility and hardware. Separated occupancies, for instance, may require rated separations with labeled fire door assemblies and specific hardware, while nonseparated occupancies can apply more restrictive requirements across connected zones.

The takeaway is not that every opening needs the highest-performing choice. It is that openings which look identical on a plan can perform differently once the building is occupied.

Adaptive Reuse Changes the Starting Point

Adaptive reuse has gained momentum as owners convert underused or aging properties to meet demand for housing and flexible space. These projects rarely start clean. Existing frames remain. Older door preps remain. Fire labels still matter. Often the opening was designed decades ago for a different occupancy and a different security expectation.

Converting a former office building into residential units can demand new egress, accessibility, security and credential access that the original structure never anticipated. Common obstacles include incompatible door preparations, limited frame modification options, labeled openings that must be preserved, occupied building constraints, and the need to fold modern access control into older infrastructure.

Here, retrofit compatibility is not a secondary concern. Retrofit work means coordinating around occupants, removing existing hardware, verifying conditions in the field and preparing doors and frames to accept what comes next - all of which affects labor, schedule and inspection readiness. Hardware that works with familiar preps, supports field adjustment, and leaves room for future flexibility reduces that uncertainty without sacrificing performance.

Electrified Openings Require Early Coordination

As buildings become more connected, more openings must support credentialed access, monitoring, electrification, automated operation, or future upgrades. That turns hardware selection into a coordination decision as much as a product decision.

Electrified locks, electric strikes, request-to-exit devices, sensors, automated operators and access control integrations must be planned with the full opening in view - power transfer, door prep, fail-safe versus fail-secure operation, emergency egress, monitoring and future service. Recognized-performance standards help, but only when they are matched to the actual use of the opening and coordinated with how the system will be installed, powered and maintained.

What to Weigh Before Selecting Hardware

A wider lens does not mean slowing the project down. It means asking the right questions early enough to avoid the wrong trade-offs later. A better hardware decision starts with a better question: What does this opening need to do over the life of the building?

• Quality and durability. Will the hardware hold up to expected traffic, abuse potential and environment?
• Application fit. Does the lock match how the space functions, with the right level of performance and options for that use?
• Code and life safety. Does the opening need egress, fire rating, accessibility, panic hardware or occupancy-specific provisions?
• Access needs. Does the space require mechanical locking, credentialed access, auditability, electrification, monitoring or future upgrade capability – and has it been planned for power, integration, and emergency operation?
• Serviceability. Can the team install, maintain, repair and replace components efficiently?
• Design continuity. Can the hardware support the building's aesthetic, finish strategy and user experience?
• Lifecycle value. Will the solution reduce future service calls, replacements, retrofit work, and disruption?
• Trade-off clarity. If a lower-priced option is being considered, what is changing - grade, testing, listing, materials, cycle performance, function availability, warranty, serviceability, or compatibility - and are those changes acceptable for the opening?

Performance grades and certification standards are useful, but they are most useful when matched to the actual use of the opening. This does not make the process more complicated. It makes it more accurate.

Looking Ahead

Long-standing preferred products and established hardware sets exist for good reasons. They help teams move quickly, hold consistency, simplify maintenance, and reduce risk. As buildings grow more varied, those familiar choices deserve to be applied with more precision – not abandoned.

The best hardware decisions are rarely made from one variable alone. They come from understanding the opening, the building, the people who maintain it and the expectations it must meet.

A broader set of compliant options is useful when it helps teams reduce compromise. The point is not to make every lock do everything or to let price lead the decision. It is to give teams better ways to match quality, performance, serviceability, and application fit to the opening. A strong hardware strategy starts with better questions earlier, so each opening can perform the way the building needs it to.

This article originally appeared in the July/August 2026 issue of Security Today.