4 ms·

It's a common but incorrect belief that many small individual offices is a substantially more expensive buildout option.

by Zetice 3y ago

deathanatos 3y ago
Do you want to share with us how that belief is incorrect? It seems downright trivial to me that giving employees 4' desks packed side to side, back to back in rows requires less square footage and no walls, vs. an office. (And thus, the race for short-term gains in terms of less real estate trumped the long-term gains of SWE being able to think, and the race to the bottom began. It seems to me the costs of open-office are all after the build out: lower morale, higher noise, lower productivity, faster disease transmission, etc.…)
- Zetice 3y ago
  It's trivial to you that a few extra pieces of drywall and a handful of additional planks of wood would launch the cost of a buildout into the stratosphere? Are you even reading the comments about studies showing the lost productivity (and therefore revenue) caused by open office spaces? I didn't say it wouldn't cost one penny more than an open office, I said it wasn't wildly different. So many buildouts go halfway already with the tiny "phone rooms"; it's not in any way a budget buster to keep that idea going, except around a central shared space where meetings can take place.
  - deathanatos 3y ago
    When I consider "the cost of the buildout", I consider that to be the cost to do the buildout, nothing more. Productivity gains/losses are outside the scope of that. I.e., the claim, as I read it, is that construction of an open office is more expensive than a non-open floorplan, per employee. (If you consider that, yes, I think open office is the long-term worse option, and the parenthetical in my comment pretty clearly denotes that.) > I didn't say it wouldn't cost one penny more than an open office, I said it wasn't wildly different. This still isn't clear to me. An office is probably, what, 10' square, at least? Google thinks, "The North American office size average is currently 150-175 square feet per employee. Open office spaces for tech companies typically use even less at 125-175 square feet per person". That's considerably more room than an open office floorplan, which is probably closer to 4'x4', maybe 4'x5'. > So many buildouts go halfway already with the tiny "phone rooms" My company had 3 of those, back to back to back, occupying what like 30–40 sq ft total? That's hardly "halfway".
    - Zetice 3y ago
      I don't really know what you want me to do with this comment. Okay? What part of any of this suddenly exponentially blows up the cost of building many little offices (not average sized offices, unnecessary for this)? You asked me to justify it, I did, and you replied with a generic moan. Alright?
    - pseudalopex 3y ago
      What you quoted had numbers for open office spaces. It said they were not much smaller than average or the same typically. And the source was a leasing guide. Office meant company office. Not individual office.
      - deathanatos 3y ago
        Ha, so you're right. That's what I get for trusting AI to answer a question. That figure absurd in the context of an open office floorplan, and I suspect they're doing some "damned lies" statistics to arrive at it, such as amortizing the common area across the occupancy. I think every open office floorplan I've been in has had 4' desks. The next desk is flush against mine, and there was someone sitting directly behind me. At best, that's 16 sq ft. Generously 20. I have no idea how you arrive at ~150 sq. ft.
btbuildem 3y ago
[dead]
- Zetice 3y ago
  You do all of that already for buildouts, you're pretending like this isn't a marginal cost question when in reality it is. And I never said you would retain 100% of the space exactly as it is in an open plan, I said it is not wildly more expensive when you're already building out the floor.

It's a common but incorrect belief that many small individual offices is a substantially more expensive buildout option.

by Zetice 3y ago

It's a common but incorrect belief that many small individual offices is a substantially more expensive buildout option.

deathanatos 3y ago

Do you want to share with us how that belief is incorrect? It seems downright trivial to me that giving employees 4' desks packed side to side, back to back in rows requires less square footage and no walls, vs. an office. (And thus, the race for short-term gains in terms of less real estate trumped the long-term gains of SWE being able to think, and the race to the bottom began. It seems to me the costs of open-office are all after the build out: lower morale, higher noise, lower productivity, faster disease transmission, etc.…)

Zetice 3y ago
It's trivial to you that a few extra pieces of drywall and a handful of additional planks of wood would launch the cost of a buildout into the stratosphere? Are you even reading the comments about studies showing the lost productivity (and therefore revenue) caused by open office spaces? I didn't say it wouldn't cost one penny more than an open office, I said it wasn't wildly different. So many buildouts go halfway already with the tiny "phone rooms"; it's not in any way a budget buster to keep that idea going, except around a central shared space where meetings can take place.
- deathanatos 3y ago
  When I consider "the cost of the buildout", I consider that to be the cost to do the buildout, nothing more. Productivity gains/losses are outside the scope of that. I.e., the claim, as I read it, is that construction of an open office is more expensive than a non-open floorplan, per employee. (If you consider that, yes, I think open office is the long-term worse option, and the parenthetical in my comment pretty clearly denotes that.) > I didn't say it wouldn't cost one penny more than an open office, I said it wasn't wildly different. This still isn't clear to me. An office is probably, what, 10' square, at least? Google thinks, "The North American office size average is currently 150-175 square feet per employee. Open office spaces for tech companies typically use even less at 125-175 square feet per person". That's considerably more room than an open office floorplan, which is probably closer to 4'x4', maybe 4'x5'. > So many buildouts go halfway already with the tiny "phone rooms" My company had 3 of those, back to back to back, occupying what like 30–40 sq ft total? That's hardly "halfway".
  - Zetice 3y ago
    I don't really know what you want me to do with this comment. Okay? What part of any of this suddenly exponentially blows up the cost of building many little offices (not average sized offices, unnecessary for this)? You asked me to justify it, I did, and you replied with a generic moan. Alright?
  - pseudalopex 3y ago
    What you quoted had numbers for open office spaces. It said they were not much smaller than average or the same typically. And the source was a leasing guide. Office meant company office. Not individual office.
    - deathanatos 3y ago
      Ha, so you're right. That's what I get for trusting AI to answer a question. That figure absurd in the context of an open office floorplan, and I suspect they're doing some "damned lies" statistics to arrive at it, such as amortizing the common area across the occupancy. I think every open office floorplan I've been in has had 4' desks. The next desk is flush against mine, and there was someone sitting directly behind me. At best, that's 16 sq ft. Generously 20. I have no idea how you arrive at ~150 sq. ft.

btbuildem 3y ago

[dead]

Zetice 3y ago
You do all of that already for buildouts, you're pretending like this isn't a marginal cost question when in reality it is. And I never said you would retain 100% of the space exactly as it is in an open plan, I said it is not wildly more expensive when you're already building out the floor.