In the UK up until Covid we were designing to 1:8 in the City of London… the Building Council for Offices has relaxed back to 1:10…
I think a rethink is needed as to how a Developer / Landlord is dealing with this, because moving from 1:10 to 1:6 has pretty big Capex implications… and less Net Lettable Area…
It might be that a balance is struck where the landlord pays up to a point and for the elements that need to be built in from day 0 at the correct density (lifts, stairs, air risers).
Other elements will need to be provided by the Occupiers within their NIA (extra AHUs, more Washrooms…)..
I agree Carlo. The other component here is actual occupancy density v design density, and what the authorities will certify.
We all know that workspaces are never occupied at full capacity, so even a space designed with a notional capacity of 1:6 may never actually be occupied at more than 1:10….. in theory therefore the services provided at 1:8 as you noted could be more than adequate for a space with a number of seats that suggests a notionally much higher density.
But would a certifier approve it??
Here in Australia, we can get this approach approved provided that there is an active occupancy monitoring system and a management plan to maintain occupancy at no greater level than the certified number - A little like a license for a hospitality venue (yet another hospitality crossover!)
You raise a great point here Carlo - the density will naturally rise when the seat metric is adopted, and I view this as a positive progression as it is the people that create the ‘vibe’ in the space, so greater density can lead to a much better feel for a workspace.
Phil Kirschner often uses his the example of when he toured people through the WeWork HQ and they asked ‘why does it feel like this?’. That ‘feel’ came from the activity in the space created by a design density of 1:5 or 1:6sqm, far from the common building standard of 1:10sqm, or the typical fitout standard of somewhere between 1:10 and 1:15sqm depending on your location.
As for what is appropriate - this will depend on the workspace and the objectives or the organisation. But what seems clear is that landlords designing their base buildings to accommodate only 1:10sqm is perhaps a little outdated (I’m being kind!).
This makes a lot of sense.
Based on this new KPI, are we able to determine what is the appropriate occupational density (people per sqm) for a workplace today?
To me it sounds like it could be paradoxically even denser given that seats take less space than desks depending on the setting.
In the UK up until Covid we were designing to 1:8 in the City of London… the Building Council for Offices has relaxed back to 1:10…
I think a rethink is needed as to how a Developer / Landlord is dealing with this, because moving from 1:10 to 1:6 has pretty big Capex implications… and less Net Lettable Area…
It might be that a balance is struck where the landlord pays up to a point and for the elements that need to be built in from day 0 at the correct density (lifts, stairs, air risers).
Other elements will need to be provided by the Occupiers within their NIA (extra AHUs, more Washrooms…)..
Just thinking with a Developer hat here…
I agree Carlo. The other component here is actual occupancy density v design density, and what the authorities will certify.
We all know that workspaces are never occupied at full capacity, so even a space designed with a notional capacity of 1:6 may never actually be occupied at more than 1:10….. in theory therefore the services provided at 1:8 as you noted could be more than adequate for a space with a number of seats that suggests a notionally much higher density.
But would a certifier approve it??
Here in Australia, we can get this approach approved provided that there is an active occupancy monitoring system and a management plan to maintain occupancy at no greater level than the certified number - A little like a license for a hospitality venue (yet another hospitality crossover!)
You raise a great point here Carlo - the density will naturally rise when the seat metric is adopted, and I view this as a positive progression as it is the people that create the ‘vibe’ in the space, so greater density can lead to a much better feel for a workspace.
Phil Kirschner often uses his the example of when he toured people through the WeWork HQ and they asked ‘why does it feel like this?’. That ‘feel’ came from the activity in the space created by a design density of 1:5 or 1:6sqm, far from the common building standard of 1:10sqm, or the typical fitout standard of somewhere between 1:10 and 1:15sqm depending on your location.
As for what is appropriate - this will depend on the workspace and the objectives or the organisation. But what seems clear is that landlords designing their base buildings to accommodate only 1:10sqm is perhaps a little outdated (I’m being kind!).