I have observed with some disbelief the numerous articles that have heralded the “death of the office” and other click-bait driven headlines. It makes for a fun read but fails to really understand exactly what the office is for and how the modern workspace is actually used. The best way to take a view of this is to understand why we will be desperate to return to the office and why organizations should be doing everything they can to ensure it does.
From a purely economic perspective, in our services-driven economy, we should be most worried about the loss of “intangible capital” during lockdown. This refers to the knowledge and skills that have not been transferred to colleagues, the exchange of ideas that is commonplace in most offices and which is extremely hard to replicate on Facetime/Zoom/Teams.
In his recent article in the Times, Philip Aldrick, The Economics Editor, assesses the “degradation of knowledge” that has occurred during lockdown. In a services economy, this could be fatal to the long-term health of ideation, and delivery of consultancy, creative services and the media. He also flags that in research last year by US National Bureau of Economic Research found that the number of patents filed in 1920s prohibition America fell where the bars closed. “Prohibition had a temporary effect on the rate of invention,” Michael Andrews writes, because people weren’t mixing in the city bars.”
City life
And what of our city centers? We have already seen that interest in regional office space is up across numerous national markets. The UK-market being a prime example, with demand for flex workspace already up in the regions of the country and in locations on the outskirts of London – demand in the Capital has been slower to return. It looks very much like that there will be a retreat to the regions as commuters look to avoid the dreaded prospect of mass transport. But, again, there is nuance to this discussion that is being neglected by the focus on the “death of the office”.