By Simon Allford
Edition 3 – June 2014 Pages 15-18
Tags: technology • workplace strategy • design thinking
The title of my talk at the IFMA Workplace Strategy Summit 2014 was my answer to the question ‘is back to basics the office of the future?’ But underscoring my throwaway response is my conviction that there is no single future for the office. Just as there is no ideal structural material, building or city of the future; there is no standard way of working, or standard worker. So there should always be choice of location, of lease, of scale, of volume, of specification, of community, even of character. Without choice, the ideal becomes dogmatic.
So, one thing I can say for certain is that the offices of the future will each be very different. One of the key advantages offered by the technological revolution that is shaping our post-industrial world is that we can return to the pre-industrial world of the bespoke: a world where buildings are built in response to people and places. A world where the environment is tailored to the individual’s changing needs and preferences.
Both the BMW and 2CV will comfortably get you from A to B (admittedly with markedly different levels of comfort!) so the choice you make between them is as much for reasons of taste and aesthetics (and what it says about you as an individual), as it is for reasons of price and engineering. And what a building says about an organisation is ever more important; even more important than what a car says about an individual!
There is a distinction between a building, an office and a workplace. I am an architect, and I design and help construct all kinds of very different buildings for very different clients. We have built our practice upon the idea that each building is a unique response to context: being the particular people and politics, the physical place, and the moment in time in which we all come together to make something. So yes, there are iterations across a series of projects and shared strategies and architectural tactics, but in essence each building is still particular to place, people and its time.
I have, however, had something of a damascene discovery (I cannot say moment as it has emerged over a good few projects and years). While I would still propose that each building is individual, I am very clear that they all share similar essential characteristics: the need for light, volume, air, delight and promenade. This is regardless of typology; be they schools, offices, apartments, leisure or health care facilities; for public or private use and regardless of whether they are small or large, new, old or a combination. While the building is bespoke to its context it is not tailored to its typology. This is why we are so easily able to convert buildings for uses that were not anticipated at their inception.
I made this case for the Universal Building at the BCO conference in Madrid last year, 2013, in an accompanying article for the Architect’s Journal:
In the window of the Vitra Showroom, in yet another old rag trade factory with apartments above, I recently spotted the slogan that ‘Work is a thing you do, not a place you go’, which cleverly conjured up familiar images of working anywhere but the office. My proposition, however, is fundamentally different: ‘work’ is a place you go to do things. A place where you can live, work and play.
Long-term value is not to be found in creating an office, or indeed most other typologically defined single-use buildings. The future resides in architecture that is responsive to change, that can accommodate different programmes in similar spaces, both simultaneously and over time – spaces that have recognisable shared qualities, but that are still particular to their context and arranged around a memorable promenade.
So forget the particularities of the office and think of The Universal Use Class Order of the City Sandwich, a rich mix of stacked uses. This is a typology worth pursuing; even if (in respect of statute, finance and current mind-set) we are obliged to present it as ‘office’.
‘The future ain’t what it used to be’
As I firmly believe this is the case, I inevitably fully concur with Mark Twain’s observation that ’the future ain’t what it used to be’. And, in the case of office design, it never has been. Especially as the much discussed office of the future (if only I had a pound for every time I have heard that title) is very much like the coffee house and club of the past. It is a building that Pepys would recognise.
Of course, there is and has been change: but in global design terms these are but nuances. The successful office building is now likely to include a shop, a bar, a restaurant, some retail; people might even be living close by or in floors in between. Indeed in that sense it is just a building inhabited by people, some of whom work. If it is ‘good’ it is now deemed so because it is an enjoyable space to be, where chance encounters and escape from intrusion are facilitated.
In that sense it is a microcosm of the city, in that its social and cultural importance is increasingly recognised.It is as much about place as space. And the space that it does offer will have personality and volume: ‘vanilla’ specification space is ‘done for’, even when embellished with a ripple! The best offices are a product measured in terms of value, not of cost.
We work too long generally: at home, in the taxicab, on the plane and train and of course, in the office. This is why the spaces in between are as important as your desk. I use the word ‘your’ decisively as I do not believe the trend to lose your personal base and its vital social connections will aid anyone’s efficiency (and incidentally, nor do Google, who provide a desk for all their ever increasing numbers of staff).
But it is all still about the efficiency of space and time. The office of the future is here now, and it is called working everywhere you are and on the journeys in between. As a result, it is both hard and too demanding. And no, we don’t and won’t all work from an attic or a barn. We come to work to meet people and resolve challenges face-to-face, not by email or twittering or utilising the other useless paraphernalia of social media.
Just as in the 19th century, paternalistic employers created ideal worlds (think Port Sunlight, Bournville, Saltaire) now they curate ideal workspace with places that we want to inhabit; with recreation, crèches and storage for your Amazon/Ocado delivery as well as the essential bars and restaurants.
Technology is working hard, but ever less evident; and I believe building services will, depending on location and value, head in two different but equally important and appropriate directions. In one highly tailored option, light, air, water and that other element data, will be supplied only when and where needed. In the other ready-made option, there will be acceptance of a more average condition and a more robust model. Both are highly flexible and are distinguished by both cost and, importantly, an attitude to building services technology. So beware over-specification; beware trends….