4 ms·
I wonder to what extent this is also driven by the shape of their headquarters. Ive has left them saddled with a very cool looking but completely unexpandable d
by native_samples 5y ago
I wonder to what extent this is also driven by the shape of their headquarters. Ive has left them saddled with a very cool looking but completely unexpandable donut shape. It means every time they want to add more people than the donut can support those people have to become very visibly 'second class citizens', housed in boxy generic offices. The picking and choosing would be quite bad for their cohesiveness, one might imagine.
Apparently GCHQ in the UK had the same problem. They moved into a new donut shaped office but they somehow managed to not count one of their teams when doing the capacity planning and ended up with an office that was too small for the organization. And what's the one office shape you cannot expand in any way? A circle.
- quantumwannabe 5y agoYou could always do multiple rings, like the Pentagon has. I believe GCHQ did say that their building's design was inspired by the Pentagon's, so it'd make sense.
- Boltgolt 5y agoAs an intelligence agency the GCHQ should have added a boxy extention to the circle, turning it into a massive magnifying glass
- novok 5y agoI always felt like the donut was a missed opportunity, they could of made it triple the height. Typical SFBA suburban zoning restrictions probably limited them to the bog standard 4 story max, even though that 'high rise' was surrounded by parkland.