> “People are coming in to do occasional big meetings, but really the rest of the time, they want a quiet private spot to get on a Zoom call,” said Witting, a partner at the company. “It’s weird.”
It's not weird. Before we had open concept hellscapes, and the cubicle farm, people had actual offices. Four walls and a door you could close.
WSJ seems to have the memory of a goldfish if they can't hark back to a time before offices became a free-for-all for noise pollution.
Surprise, surprise, people want a quiet private space to do most of their work, and will gravitate toward those [limited] spaces in a modern office.
In my experience, 90% of the modern office was never fun. It was finding a floating desk, putting on noise cancelling headphones, and trying to ignore the constant interruptions to do your work. The only fun part was socialising during lunch/coffee with colleagues, but the rest of the experience was a huge net negative.
The culture of the company has to match the culture of the space. If focus is important it needs to be in the physical design of the space and the culture it supports.
I don't know if newsrooms started open concept but they had it easily for a long time.
As a design, "open concept" in part was less construction costs and more profit for the lease.
Of course, it is pushed as being open/collaborative/innovative. It was an innovative way to openly oversee collaboration, or whatever the acting required to look busy was. :)
> Before we had open concept hellscapes, and the cubicle farm, people had actual offices
It is true, but the move to cubicles and in the end open halls was necessary because rent in prime employment centers of the world has gotten so high, and companies seem to be requiring ever more people and we cant afford to give everyone an office nowadays. Modern office is definitely better in some ways socially, I dont think you will be really motivated to go to work if all you had was one room to sit and close the doors to not see anyone. These days, You have more people to talk to if you want and sometimes its a good and safe environment to discuss things. If I had to sit in an empty room to work and then it wouldn't be any different than working from home.
> I dont think you will be really motivated to go to work if all you had was one room to sit and close the doors to not see anyone
You're describing an office like it's solitary confinement. I'm describing somewhere where you have the option to choose silence and solitude, not the obligation.
> and sometimes its a good and safe environment to discuss things
And the rest of the time? A free-for-all for managers trying to build their own fiefdom-- sorry, "team."
> If I had to sit in an empty room to work and then it wouldn't be any different than working from home.
Which is precisely why so many people are resisting the RTO mandates. Not only do they have a pointless commute after working for years remotely [1], but the office they're coming back to is not even an empty room, it's an open-plan office with all of the downsides I described in OP.
It's not weird. Before we had open concept hellscapes, and the cubicle farm, people had actual offices. Four walls and a door you could close.
WSJ seems to have the memory of a goldfish if they can't hark back to a time before offices became a free-for-all for noise pollution.
Surprise, surprise, people want a quiet private space to do most of their work, and will gravitate toward those [limited] spaces in a modern office.
In my experience, 90% of the modern office was never fun. It was finding a floating desk, putting on noise cancelling headphones, and trying to ignore the constant interruptions to do your work. The only fun part was socialising during lunch/coffee with colleagues, but the rest of the experience was a huge net negative.