6 ms·

It’s been repeatedly debunked that in terms of real estate and operating costs, open plan offices don’t save money compared to one-office-per-worker designs, no

by mlthoughts2018 6y ago

It’s been repeatedly debunked that in terms of real estate and operating costs, open plan offices don’t save money compared to one-office-per-worker designs, not even in super dense urban centers. To boot, many tech companies actively spend money to tear down privacy features and install open plan features, even when there is no growth plan or need for higher worker density per square foot, often even splurging ridiculous money to make the office have excessively opulent features like gourmet dining, coffee bars, alcohol bars, roof decks, etc. - despite hugely financial losses from the destructive effect on productivity and lack of privacy. Offices are not chosen for short term cost savings, except possibly very early stage startups. Beyond that, offices are juvenile shrines to the company executives and founders.

ChuckNorris89 6y ago
>It’s been repeatedly debunked that in terms of real estate and operating costs, open plan offices don’t save money compared to one-office-per-worker designs Source? I can't imagine there would be enough space for individual offices larger than a phonebooth per employee in the same space as open offices. Anyway, to play the devil's advocate for the move fast and beak things type of companies, open offices are not only about cost, but about the ease to move people and teams around instantly as projects/resources change and more people are onboarded without having to constantly tear down and erect walls to accommodate the various sized teams.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  Sorry, I’m not going to google it for you and filter out the confirmation bias effect. This topic has been debated so extensively that it’s no longer acceptable to throw in a super lazy “citation needed” kind of rhetorical deflection. The burden of proof runs the other way. It’s mundane and uncontroversial to state that open plan offices fail to save money. If someone wants to claim the opposite, they need to bring extraordinary evidence.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    If it's been debated so much and so obvious, a reference should be trivial to supply. That it isn't doesn't point towards someone else's laziness (how are they to know what aspects of the arguments you think are correct and which are "confirmation bias?), but instead towards the topic probably not being as decided as you seem to think.
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      No, truly and emphatically not. People throw around “citation needed” style lazy remarks on HN very often. As a rhetorical device it’s critical to not treat that as legitimate, especially for well-known subjects. It has nothing to do with how easy or hard it is to look up confirmatory material, rather it has to do with rejecting disingenuous attempts to goad people into citation spam debates.
      - kbenson 6y ago
        > People throw around “citation needed” style lazy remarks on HN very often. First, that isn't always used as a rhetorical device as you state. Sometimes (a lot of times) it's people asking so they can look for themselves, either to confirm the data or educate themselves as to how they are wrong. Second, why does anything you say on the subject have weight? Do people know who you are, and have you previously shown yourself to be an authority on the subject in question? If not, why would you expect someone to take your word as fact when no evidence is supplied, and no reasoning is either? Would you accept the same from me? If you look closely, the person that asked for a source noted why they thought it would be otherwise. Instead of reading it as "you're wrong and I'm going to use a rhetorical trick to eat up your time" I read it as "where can I read more, since this goes counter to my intuition, which I just laid out for you." > It has nothing to do with how easy or hard it is to look up confirmatory material, rather it has to do with rejecting disingenuous attempts to goad people into citation spam debates. If you can't back up your statements, don't make those statement as fact. That also avoids citation spam debates, as those that aren't actually contributing don't contribute to the spam. Citations aren't spam, they lend credibility and facts to a debate. Having a lot of them on both sides at least lets people see more details on the subject. Unsupported assertions of fact? Those are spam. These aren't school essays, these are conversations with other people. Taking a definitive stance in a discussion without the facts to back them up isn't conducive to a useful discussion here, or likely anywhere, from what I've seen.

ChuckNorris89 6y ago

>It’s been repeatedly debunked that in terms of real estate and operating costs, open plan offices don’t save money compared to one-office-per-worker designs Source? I can't imagine there would be enough space for individual offices larger than a phonebooth per employee in the same space as open offices. Anyway, to play the devil's advocate for the move fast and beak things type of companies, open offices are not only about cost, but about the ease to move people and teams around instantly as projects/resources change and more people are onboarded without having to constantly tear down and erect walls to accommodate the various sized teams.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
Sorry, I’m not going to google it for you and filter out the confirmation bias effect. This topic has been debated so extensively that it’s no longer acceptable to throw in a super lazy “citation needed” kind of rhetorical deflection. The burden of proof runs the other way. It’s mundane and uncontroversial to state that open plan offices fail to save money. If someone wants to claim the opposite, they need to bring extraordinary evidence.
- kbenson 6y ago
  If it's been debated so much and so obvious, a reference should be trivial to supply. That it isn't doesn't point towards someone else's laziness (how are they to know what aspects of the arguments you think are correct and which are "confirmation bias?), but instead towards the topic probably not being as decided as you seem to think.
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    No, truly and emphatically not. People throw around “citation needed” style lazy remarks on HN very often. As a rhetorical device it’s critical to not treat that as legitimate, especially for well-known subjects. It has nothing to do with how easy or hard it is to look up confirmatory material, rather it has to do with rejecting disingenuous attempts to goad people into citation spam debates.
    - kbenson 6y ago
      > People throw around “citation needed” style lazy remarks on HN very often. First, that isn't always used as a rhetorical device as you state. Sometimes (a lot of times) it's people asking so they can look for themselves, either to confirm the data or educate themselves as to how they are wrong. Second, why does anything you say on the subject have weight? Do people know who you are, and have you previously shown yourself to be an authority on the subject in question? If not, why would you expect someone to take your word as fact when no evidence is supplied, and no reasoning is either? Would you accept the same from me? If you look closely, the person that asked for a source noted why they thought it would be otherwise. Instead of reading it as "you're wrong and I'm going to use a rhetorical trick to eat up your time" I read it as "where can I read more, since this goes counter to my intuition, which I just laid out for you." > It has nothing to do with how easy or hard it is to look up confirmatory material, rather it has to do with rejecting disingenuous attempts to goad people into citation spam debates. If you can't back up your statements, don't make those statement as fact. That also avoids citation spam debates, as those that aren't actually contributing don't contribute to the spam. Citations aren't spam, they lend credibility and facts to a debate. Having a lot of them on both sides at least lets people see more details on the subject. Unsupported assertions of fact? Those are spam. These aren't school essays, these are conversations with other people. Taking a definitive stance in a discussion without the facts to back them up isn't conducive to a useful discussion here, or likely anywhere, from what I've seen.