Ten years in construction and interior design is both a very long time and surprisingly little. In 2015, many decisions were made in good faith — based on available trends, manufacturers’ catalogues, contractor recommendations, and budget realities. Today it is 2026. Many houses, apartments, and offices are now entering a phase where the consequences of those choices are becoming tangible — not only aesthetically, but financially as well.
This article is not a reckoning with the past or a critique of decisions made years ago. It is a calm analysis of why certain choices felt obvious in 2015 and why in 2026 they generate unplanned costs. More importantly, it focuses on what a decade of experience tells us about the future.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Why did these decisions seem obvious in 2015?
3. Decorative wall panels: the “wow” effect that quickly faded
4. Floors from 2015 versus the reality of 2026
5. Floor underlays: an invisible decision with visible consequences
6. Home insulation: when “good enough” stops being enough
7. What do all the mistakes of 2015 have in common?
8. Summary
9. FAQ
Why did these decisions seem obvious in 2015?
To understand the decisions made around 2015, it is worth briefly returning to the realities of that time — without judgment, with full context. The construction and interior design market was then in a phase of rapid growth. Building was intensive, fast, and often “first-time” — a first apartment, a first house, an investment property. It was natural that most choices were driven by what was available, recommended, and considered modern.
Interior design and construction trends around 2015 were clearly defined. Smooth surfaces, pronounced textures, gloss or perfectly even matte finishes, geometric forms, and uniform colours dominated. Interiors were meant to look “like something straight out of a catalogue” — precise, clean, free of natural irregularities. In construction, the focus was on technologies that were quick to install and predictable in cost, allowing projects to be completed on schedule.
At the same time, there was strong pressure on price, time, and a modern appearance. Investors — both private and commercial — had to make decisions within strict budget frameworks. Materials that delivered an immediate visual effect at a relatively low cost naturally prevailed. “Modernity” was a value in itself: the more technical, uniform, and flawless something looked, the better it aligned with expectations at the time.
Equally important were materials that looked excellent in catalogues, showrooms, and at trade fairs. Decorative panels, laminated floors, thin claddings, and synthetic finishes offered exactly what was being sought then: a spectacular effect immediately after installation. In display conditions — perfect lighting, no moisture, no intensive use — they appeared almost unbeatable.
Decorative wall panels: the “wow” effect that quickly faded
Around 2015, decorative wall panels experienced a real boom. MDF, PVC, and laminated claddings appeared in apartments, offices, hotels, and commercial spaces. They answered the need for a quick “interior effect” — a single wall that draws attention and gives a space character without the cost of renovating an entire room.
What impressed in 2015 was very specific. Above all, the price — decorative panels were significantly cheaper than natural claddings. Easy and fast installation made it possible to finish work in one or two days, often without major disruption to the rest of the interior. Then there was the look: perfectly repeatable patterns, pronounced 3D textures, fashionable colours, and finishes inspired by concrete, wood, or stone. The “wow” effect was immediate and predictable.
The problem was that these materials were designed primarily for first impressions, not for long-term use. After a few — and especially after a dozen or more — years, the consequences of this philosophy began to surface.
After years of use, deformations appeared — panels reacted to changes in temperature and humidity, warped, opened at joints, or detached from the wall. Moisture, even when periodic and invisible, led to MDF swelling, discolouration, and loss of rigidity. Surface ageing was inevitable: fading, microcracks, and loss of colour or gloss made a wall that was meant to be decorative start to look simply bad.
Decorative panels made of natural cork
Against this background, natural cork represents a completely different approach to wall design. It is a material that copes far better with the passage of time, moisture, and temperature fluctuations. Its cellular structure allows it to work with the building rather than against it. It does not swell, crack, or lose stability under normal use.
Equally important is an aesthetic that ages rather than “breaks down.” Cork does not imitate other materials — it is authentic. Over time, it gains character, patina, and depth instead of looking worn or outdated. As a result, a cork wall does not need to be replaced simply because trends have changed.
Floors from 2015 versus the reality of 2026
Around 2015, the flooring market was dominated by laminated panels and inexpensive engineered floors. They were readily available, offered a vast range of designs, and promised “technical parameters” that looked convincing on paper. For many investors, this was an obvious choice — visually appealing, quick to install, and cost-predictable.
A major role was played by the boom in laminated flooring. Décors increasingly imitated wood, stone, or concrete, while abrasion classes became the main sales argument. Engineered floors, in turn, were meant to combine the look of a natural material with “modern technology” and a lower price than solid wood. In 2015, these solutions seemed like a sensible compromise between aesthetics and budget.
After years of use, problems that were rarely discussed with clients in 2015 became clearly noticeable. The first was noise — panels installed on rigid subfloors amplified footstep sounds, which was particularly troublesome in apartments and multi-storey houses. The second issue was the sensation of a “cold” floor, affecting not only comfort but also actual energy consumption required to heat interiors. Another problem was local damage that could not be repaired in isolation — a cracked panel, flooding, or permanent deformation meant dismantling a large section or the entire surface.
Cork floors
In light of these experiences, cork floors offer a completely different philosophy of use. Their elasticity means that the floor not only withstands everyday loads better, but also remains comfortable even after many years of intensive use. Cork yields underfoot and returns to its original shape, reducing fatigue and noise.
One of the most noticeable advantages is warmth underfoot. Cork naturally insulates, so the floor does not draw heat out of the interior. In practice, this means greater thermal comfort and real energy savings, especially during the heating season.
Floor underlays: an invisible decision with visible consequences
The floor underlay is one of those elements that in 2015 was treated almost exclusively as a formality. It was not visible, did not affect the appearance of the interior, and rarely featured prominently in discussions with investors. The underlay was “the cheapest element” where, in common perception, it was safe to cut costs.
At the time, the prevailing thinking was that since the underlay would be covered by panels anyway, its quality was of secondary importance. What mattered most was compliance with the flooring manufacturer’s recommendations and the lowest possible price. As a result, underlay selection was often automatic, without deeper analysis of long-term performance.
Most commonly used were PE foams, XPS boards, and thin synthetic mats. They were readily available, lightweight, quick to install, and inexpensive. In the first months of use, they fulfilled their basic function — levelling minor irregularities and reducing noise to an “acceptable” level. The problem was that many of these materials were not designed for years of dynamic loads. Over time, the consequences of these choices became apparent. The first was loss of performance — underlays became permanently compressed, lost elasticity, and ceased to function properly. This, in turn, led to poorer acoustics: footstep sounds grew louder and more hollow, and vibrations transferred to the building structure. Another issue was problems with panel joints — lack of stable support caused micro-movements, joint separation, and accelerated wear of the entire floor.
Cork underlays for floors
Cork underlays operate according to a completely different logic. Their key feature is long-term stability of performance — cork does not undergo permanent compression and retains its elasticity and load-bearing capacity even after many years of use. This allows the floor to perform evenly and predictably.
Equally important is sound insulation. Unlike many synthetic materials, cork does not lose its acoustic properties over time. Acoustic comfort is therefore not a temporary effect, but a permanent feature of the flooring system.
Home insulation: when “good enough” stops being enough
In 2015, building insulation was viewed primarily through the lens of meeting regulations and optimising investment costs. What mattered was that the house was “well insulated” according to the standards of the time and that insulation costs stayed within budget. “Good enough” perfectly captured the prevailing mindset.
Expanded polystyrene, mineral wool, and various insulation foams dominated the market. They were widely available, familiar to contractors, and easy to integrate into designs. Their technical parameters were clearly defined, and their prices made it possible to plan investment costs precisely. For most investors, they were a rational choice — safe and market-accepted.
These solutions made sense from a 2015 perspective because they addressed the real needs of that time. In 2026, however, it is increasingly clear what generates costs years later. As a result, many property owners now face the necessity of costly upgrades and thermal retrofits. Removing old insulation, correcting details, filling gaps, or replacing entire systems generates significant expenses — often far exceeding the price difference between materials at the initial construction stage.
Expanded cork
In this context, expanded cork stands out with an approach based on durability and long-term stability. It is a material whose lifespan is measured in decades rather than seasons.
One of its key advantages is natural resistance to moisture, fungi, and pests. It does not require additional chemical treatments, allowing it to retain its properties even in challenging conditions.
An added value is the combination of thermal and acoustic insulation in a single material. Expanded cork not only reduces heat loss but also effectively dampens sound, improving living comfort inside the building. In the long term, it is precisely these comprehensive, stable solutions that prove to be the most cost-effective — despite a higher initial price.
What do all the “mistakes” of 2015 have in common?
Looking back from the perspective of 2026 at decisions made a decade earlier, it is easy to see a common denominator. It is not about specific materials or technologies, but about the mindset that dominated at the time. That mindset is what causes many solutions to generate costs today, even though they were logical and widely accepted when chosen.
The first element was short-term thinking. Most decisions were made with a horizon of a few years rather than a dozen or more. What mattered was the moment of completion, sale, technical acceptance, or quick occupancy. The question “how will this perform in 10 years?” rarely arose — not because it was irrelevant, but because no one made it a standard consideration.
Closely related was a focus on upfront price rather than total cost. Materials were compared primarily on purchase and installation costs. The costs of later operation, repairs, replacement, or disposal were virtually absent from calculations.
Finally, many projects were designed “for handover,” not for use. What mattered was that everything looked good on the day the work was completed: even, aesthetic, and in line with the design. Everyday comfort, acoustics, warmth, and the ability to repair or renovate were secondary concerns because they were difficult to measure or showcase in photographs.
Summary
Decisions made around 2015 were not mistakes in the classical sense of the word. They were responses to the realities of that time — prevailing trends, available technologies, budget pressure, and execution speed. The problem was not intention, but the thinking horizon, which rarely extended beyond the moment of project completion.
Today, in 2026, we can clearly see that many materials and solutions were not designed with long lifespans in mind. Wall panels, floors, underlays, and insulation that were meant to be “good enough” are beginning to generate costs — financial, functional, and often environmental as well. Replacements instead of repairs, renovations instead of restoration, noise instead of comfort — these are the real consequences of short-term decisions.
The shared conclusion of these experiences is clear: the cheapest solution at the outset is very rarely the cheapest over time. Materials that do not age well and do not “work” with the building and its users inevitably return as problems that need to be solved.
FAQ
1. Could these problems really have been predicted back in 2015?
Not fully. At the time, the market did not openly discuss the long-term ageing of materials, and many solutions were relatively new. Investors made decisions based on available knowledge, trends, and recommendations. Today’s conclusions are the result of a decade of experience, not “mistakes” that were easy to foresee back then.
2. Does this mean all materials from 2015 are bad?
No. Many solutions still perform their function, especially where usage conditions are mild. The problem mainly concerns materials designed for quick visual impact and low cost, rather than for long-term use in changing conditions.
3. Why is cork discussed more today than it was 10 years ago?
Because priorities have changed. Today, greater emphasis is placed on durability, user comfort, acoustics, energy efficiency, and long-term costs. Natural cork meets these requirements while ageing gracefully — which in 2026 matters far more than it did in 2015.
4. Is cork only suitable for “eco” interiors?
No. This is a common myth. Cork is a technical material with excellent performance parameters. It works equally well in modern, minimalist interiors as in commercial spaces or buildings with high acoustic and thermal requirements.
