2 ms·

For startups, it's not just about the cost, it's about flexibility. It's easier to have a decent open-plan low density and 3x the people in it overall, or part

by rdl 11y ago

For startups, it's not just about the cost, it's about flexibility. It's easier to have a decent open-plan low density and 3x the people in it overall, or particularly, to 10x a certain department while 1.1xing the other departments temporarily, into a crowded shitty open plan, than it is to have a bunch of 1-2 person sized offices and somehow put 30 into a single office while keeping the others at 1-2. That's the only reason I can excuse open plan in sv tech at all; otherwise it seems to be a clear failure vs. well-executed offices. It's better than the hierarchical allocation of offices/corner offices/etc. to managers, but that isn't the optimal way to deploy offices. We can do better, even at 0-50 person startups, than either.

tempestn 11y ago
That's a great point. It's possible for everyone to have offices without having the silly office pecking order politics. Many open plans reserve the prime areas for shared spaces, and there's obviously no reason an office space couldn't (or shouldn't) do that too. In fact, that jogs a faint memory of another post on HN some months back of an office like that; all the actual offices were on the interior, and the window spaces were all hallways, meeting rooms, and break areas. Can anyone remember what that was?
- hkmurakami 11y ago
  >It's possible for everyone to have offices without having the silly office pecking order politics. IIRC this is Microsoft right?
  - erdojo 11y ago
    I interviewed once up at the Borg, and as far as I remember almost everyone had tiny private offices. They were little more than closets. I'm sure some people had bigger/better offices than others, but there was a decent baseline. I've worked in both private offices and big open floorplans like this. Prefer the former. However my favorite work environment was a smaller company where we all had two-person shared offices (most with no windows), and large coworking spaces where one could camp in the sunlight and be more social. The two-person offices kept people from feeling totally isolated and encouraged some level of watercooler conversation, plus gave everyone a sense of privacy and control over their immediate environment. I thought it was the best of both worlds.
- pilsetnieks 11y ago
  Would that really be the best way to set up offices? I would think that it would be better to set up offices around the perimeter, with as much natural light flowing into them as possible, meanwhile use the center no-window spaces for hallways, conference rooms, communal spaces.
  - tempestn 11y ago
    Most buildings will have considerably more interior than window space, so it will be difficult to give all offices a view. In my opinion it's therefore better to have everyone share the nice spaces than to give preferential treatment to some employees. Plus, the point of an office is to have somewhere to concentrate. There's no reason you can't get up and go somewhere nicer for collaboration, creative thinking, relaxation, etc. Edit, in fact, I just looked up from the desk in my home office and realized my blinds are closed. For a few hours in the afternoon I have to keep them closed to prevent the sun from blinding me, and they often end up staying that way. When I'm working I don't really notice. I'll generally think to open them when I'm in here relaxing on a nice, sunny day.

by rdl 11y ago

tempestn 11y ago

That's a great point. It's possible for everyone to have offices without having the silly office pecking order politics. Many open plans reserve the prime areas for shared spaces, and there's obviously no reason an office space couldn't (or shouldn't) do that too. In fact, that jogs a faint memory of another post on HN some months back of an office like that; all the actual offices were on the interior, and the window spaces were all hallways, meeting rooms, and break areas. Can anyone remember what that was?

hkmurakami 11y ago
>It's possible for everyone to have offices without having the silly office pecking order politics. IIRC this is Microsoft right?
- erdojo 11y ago
  I interviewed once up at the Borg, and as far as I remember almost everyone had tiny private offices. They were little more than closets. I'm sure some people had bigger/better offices than others, but there was a decent baseline. I've worked in both private offices and big open floorplans like this. Prefer the former. However my favorite work environment was a smaller company where we all had two-person shared offices (most with no windows), and large coworking spaces where one could camp in the sunlight and be more social. The two-person offices kept people from feeling totally isolated and encouraged some level of watercooler conversation, plus gave everyone a sense of privacy and control over their immediate environment. I thought it was the best of both worlds.
pilsetnieks 11y ago
Would that really be the best way to set up offices? I would think that it would be better to set up offices around the perimeter, with as much natural light flowing into them as possible, meanwhile use the center no-window spaces for hallways, conference rooms, communal spaces.
- tempestn 11y ago
  Most buildings will have considerably more interior than window space, so it will be difficult to give all offices a view. In my opinion it's therefore better to have everyone share the nice spaces than to give preferential treatment to some employees. Plus, the point of an office is to have somewhere to concentrate. There's no reason you can't get up and go somewhere nicer for collaboration, creative thinking, relaxation, etc. Edit, in fact, I just looked up from the desk in my home office and realized my blinds are closed. For a few hours in the afternoon I have to keep them closed to prevent the sun from blinding me, and they often end up staying that way. When I'm working I don't really notice. I'll generally think to open them when I'm in here relaxing on a nice, sunny day.