BUILDING BASE STRUCTURES—WHAT IF YOU HAD TO START OVER?
Sometimes it’s just about thinking ahead—even if it means a little extra up front, it can pay off later.
I get the logic behind planning for future expansion, but honestly, I think people overestimate how much “future-proofing” actually pays off. I’ve seen plenty of projects where folks spent a small fortune on extra panels, conduits, or even oversized mechanical rooms “just in case,” and then those spaces sat empty or underused for decades. Meanwhile, the rest of the house had to compromise on layout or budget because of all that contingency planning.
Centralizing systems isn’t always the villain here. In fact, with modern smart panels and wireless controls, you can keep things streamlined and still have flexibility down the road. I’ve worked on renovations where a centralized setup made upgrades way easier—less chasing wires through walls, fewer surprises when opening up ceilings. The real headache comes from poor documentation or slapdash installs, not necessarily from having everything in one spot.
That said, I do see the appeal of a subpanel for something like a pool house, especially if it’s a good distance from the main structure. But for most additions or remodels, running a new line isn’t as big a deal as people make it out to be. Sometimes I wonder if we’re just creating more complexity than we need because we’re afraid of “what if.”
Maybe it’s just me being stubborn, but I’d rather see folks invest in quality materials and solid craftsmanship up front than spend on hypothetical future needs that might never materialize. There’s a balance somewhere between planning ahead and overengineering for every possible scenario... and honestly, most homes don’t need to be ready for every eventuality under the sun.
Curious if anyone else has actually used all those “future” provisions they built in? In my experience, nine times out of ten, they end up gathering dust.
BUILDING BASE STRUCTURES—WHAT IF YOU HAD TO START OVER?
Maybe it’s just me being stubborn, but I’d rather see folks invest in quality materials and solid craftsmanship up front than spend on hypothetical future needs that might never materialize.
That’s pretty much been my experience too. I’ve walked through more than a few developments where the “future expansion” areas ended up as glorified storage closets—if they weren’t just walled off entirely. In most residential builds, it’s rare for all those contingencies to actually get used. There’s a tendency to over-design for what-ifs, and it usually comes at the expense of immediate livability or budget.
The only time I’ve really seen future-proofing pay off is with infrastructure that’s genuinely hard to retrofit—like main utility lines under driveways, or foundational plumbing stubs in basements. That makes sense because changing it later is a headache. But oversized mechanical rooms or extra electrical panels? Nine times out of ten, they just sit there.
Centralizing systems does make documentation and maintenance easier, like you said. If anything, I’d argue clear records and thoughtful layout trump overbuilding for “someday” scenarios every time.
The only time I’ve really seen future-proofing pay off is with infrastructure that’s genuinely hard to retrofit—like main utility lines under driveways, or foundational plumbing stubs in basements.
Couldn’t agree more with this. I’ve been through two major remodels and the only “future proof” stuff that actually saved me headaches was the stuff you just can’t get to later without tearing everything up. Plumbing rough-ins, conduit runs, and making sure the main panel had a bit of room for expansion—those were worth it. But I’ve got a friend who built a “flex room” in his basement for a hypothetical home theater. Five years later, it’s still just a dumping ground for boxes.
I do think there’s a balance, though. Sometimes a little extra foresight pays off, but it’s easy to get carried away. I’d rather have a well-built, comfortable space now than a bunch of empty nooks waiting for a project I might never start. Good records and smart layout have saved me more than any “just in case” space ever did.
Ever wish you’d gone even further with the “hard to reach” stuff, like maybe running extra conduit or plumbing for tech that doesn’t even exist yet? I sometimes wonder if I should’ve added more, but then again, is there such a thing as too much future-proofing?
Title: Building Base Structures—What If You Had to Start Over?
is there such a thing as too much future-proofing?
I’d argue there definitely can be. It’s tempting to want to cover every possible scenario, especially when you’re in the thick of planning and the “what ifs” start piling up. But there’s a real risk of overengineering, both in terms of cost and complexity. I’ve seen projects where folks ran extra conduit everywhere “just in case,” and a decade later, half of it’s still capped off and untouched. That’s a lot of sunk cost for hypothetical tech that may never materialize—or might use totally different infrastructure anyway.
On the flip side, I get the regret when you’re staring at a finished wall and thinking, “Why didn’t I just run one more pipe while it was open?” But I think there’s a balance. Some redundancy is smart, especially in commercial spaces where change is constant. But too much, and you’re just adding layers of maintenance and confusion for whoever comes after you.
One thing I’ve started doing is focusing on flexibility rather than just raw capacity. Modular systems, accessible chases, and clear labeling go a long way. That way, if new tech comes along, you’re not locked in, but you also haven’t buried yourself in unused infrastructure.
Future-proofing is important, but trying to anticipate every possible need can turn into its own kind of trap. Sometimes less really is more.
