I consider 277 to be considerably more dangerous than 120.
From the numbers I've seen, the vast majority of electrocutions that occur while changing ballasts "hot" involve 277 volt ballasts. It just seems more likely that 277 won't let you 'let go'.... much more easily than 120.
There is also the issue of 277 volt switches, motion sensors, timers, photocells, and the like.
As I see it, if a building will have one large tenant, with a dedicated maintanance staff, it is very possible that the staff will at least have a competent supervisor.
A building with numerous small tenants, of sundry businesses, is far more likely to attempt to 'improve' things on their own. I don't want Joe Salesman running to the home center for just any old switch, then trying to work 277 hot.
This, in turn, bring up another design consideration.
If you're going to have numerous small offices, I'd like to see everything go to a panel in that office. Again, I don't want the maintenance guy to have to kill all the lights on the whole floor just to change a bulb.
If the entire floor will be an "open office", with one tenant, then going to a panel at the end of the hall isn't such a bsd thing.
"Building cheap" seems to directly interfere with "building good" sometimes. Sure, it's a lot simpler to put all the lights on a single 277 circuit- but that makes it much harder to comply with energy rules, or to have a scheme that the tenants will find a pleasure to use. I've seen way too many places where every light in the building was controlled by ONE switch by the back door. All on- or all off. Why pay extra to give every room it's own switch?
IMO, and lacking any details about this building, I would be biased in a single pad-mount transformer outside, with switchgear feeding 208 to banks of meters on each floor. I would then run to a panel in each rental unit, plus one for the common areas on each floor.