I’m going to start this story with a disclaimer. I am estimating all of these facts. They are probably not correct. But as Rabbi Gil Kollin once said: “Something doesn’t have to be a fact to be a truth.”
Here is the outrageous claim: The largest increase in available commercial office space in the last five years came not from the building industry but from the electronics industry. A decade ago every desk had a CRT on it taking up about 3 sq ft of space now all of the CRTs are being replaced by flat LCD displays that take up about 1 sq ft. A gain of 2 sq ft of office space on 40 million desks means that the electronics industry has created about 80 Million sq ft of office space. With construction costs of about $200 sq ft it is the equivalent of buildings valued at 16 Billion Dollars. And they use 75% less energy.
This is an example of an improvement in our society that has gone unmeasured and unrecognized. Things get better but in subtle unmeasurable ways. Another example is cell phones. During the last decade the media has been reporting economic doom and gloom; high gasoline prices, a housing crisis and people who can’t afford health insurance. What they don’t report is that during that same period 250 million Americans have been able to buy cell phones. What a great country!
Discover more from Simon Burrow
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Simon,
You are correct, I’ve gained two sq ft. The trouble is I’m not organized to take advantage of it. My screen is still in the same relative position and as I look behind it I’ve got two sq ft of unorganized stuff.
Since we are estimating facts ( always scary)lets assume the fifty states have the same amount of built office space. Thats 1.6 million per state with fifty counties per state that would be 32,000 sf per county.
That is a very low number for five years of growth. That is the square footage of an average grocery store in every county. You knew I’d defend the building industry. One of the great industries of this great country.
gene
Simon:
You are using specious logic. What is gained is not “office” space, but “desk” space. Have you switched to a smaller desk now that you have a smaller footprint monitor? I suspect not.
You are correct, however, on the advantage of consuming less electricity: not only by the change of device, but also by the reduced air conditioning need caused by less heat output.
If we really wish to decrease the amount of office space used in todays world, we should go back to the days of stand-up desks (one of which I have). We would gain not only the square footage of the chair backs (perhaps 4″ by 18″ or .5 sq foot per desk-bound worker), but also by yhe reduction of passage space between each worker and the desk behind her/him. I will save the calculation of this square footage for you.
On the down side, this might cause desk chairs to become the buggy-whips of the 21st century – with the commensurate socio-economic displacement. Furthermore, with less walking space in offices, the janitorial requirements would diminish and lessen our dependence on immigrant labor.
Now, if we were truly concerned about the impact of gained square footage by the replacement of CRT’s with flat panel monitors, we would demand of our representatives at all governmental levels that new OSHA or other planning codes be enacted to require additional space be made available behind and/or around the offending flat panels and that no replacement use of such space be allowed. We would still gain the energy reduction benefits of the smaller footprints, and would increase employment with the creation of new bureaucratic positions.
Simon: On the one hand, I always love your “out of the box” thoughts on various issues. If the building industry was a “perfect world” (now there’s an oxymoron, the building industry be a perfect world), you would be on to something. However, not only is Gene’s comments correct about “usable space”, the problem (or the potentialy footage saving solution) is greater than your micro view of things. First up, it has been well documented (by numerous studies conducted by The American Institute of Architects, The American Society of Interior Designers and the Buidling & Owners Management Association) the most office space in American is between 10% to 15% inefficient due to a number of reasons including by not limited to the original design, a change in tenant’s (once a space is built out and released), and other factors. So let’s look at this fact in relation to a small company. Lets assume that 7 employees exist within an 1,800 square foot office that are a service firm (i.e. architects, lawyers, CPA’s , etc.) If they have 10% more sapce than they really need (which is typical), because the leased an existing and built out 1,800 square foot space in a buidling they really liked, they are already 180 square feet over what they really need. To attempt to save 2 square foot per monitor (i.e. 7 employees times 2 square feet) would net them 14 square feet better, which is chump change in relation to the error they have already made that cost them 180 square feet.
Converesly, if a major law firm (with a lot of cube space) was builidng out a totally new office interior that occupied a total floor (let’s assume 20,000 square feet) of a high rise, your idea might net them several hundred square feet, which could make for a few extra offices, storage or whatever.
However, getting the maximum out of every square foot of office space, in the end, is chasing the incorrect and inexpensive part of the equation. Going back to my 7 person hypothetical firm within 1,800 square feet of office space, let’s assume this firm is in Encino on Ventura Blvd, in a class “B” buidling. They will be paying annual rent (with all utilities and janitorial services) of about $ 35.00 per square foot per year, so there annual rent is $ 63,000. However, the annual payroll of the firm (let’s assume 7 people fully burdened at an average cost of $ 60,000 per person) will be $ 420,000. So here’s the wopper. Actual very sophisticated studies by such firms as Gensler and HOK (two of America’s larges archtiectural firms that have giant divisions that specialize in office interiors) have proven that the proper interior design and work flow can increase average productivity by 4% to 8%. Let’s take the middle ground and say you get a 6% increase in productivity, if you bench mark that against $420,000 of payroll, that’s $ 25,200. Fruthermore, additional studies (by ASID & the US Green Buidling Council) have documented that there is an average of six “sick days” per employees per year, which in the case of this firm would equal a loss of approxiamtely $ 10,000 per year in down time due to sick days. However, these studies have documented that properly designed work spaces include adaqute daylight and individual thermostatic controls, reduces sick days by as much as 30%, a savings of $ 3,000 in this example.
So, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE REAL WAY (as a tenant) TO SAVE MONEY ON OFFICE SPACE IS TO BE HIGHLY SELECTIVE ABOUT THE SPACE YOU LEASE AND HOW IT IS DESIGNED AND BUILT.
Conversely, IF YOU ARE A BUIDLING OWNER, THE REAL TRICK IS TO HAVE A NICE BUILDING AND ALWAYS BE STUFFING TENANTS INTO EXISTING SPACE THAT IS REALLY LARGER THAN THEY REALLY NEED, IF THEY WERE TO GO ELSEWHERE.
So in closing, I will state my position by quoting that great American Icon, Yoggi Berra, by telling you “That’s my opinion on the matter, if you don’t like it, I have others !”
John A sent me this comment via email:
It’s all true. I now have an additional, what was it, 2 SF of space on my desk. My joy at this revelation is tempered by the fact that my office is smaller, surface area less, and acoutrements cheaper than ever. Not only that, my office space has been shrinking each time I have (regrettably) changed jobs over the past several years. On the other other hand, my compensation has been rising.
S
And Michael F sent this:
Yes, that may have indeed occurred in Tech areas in the ’90’s. But, If this theory is correct, we now should have a glut of comm’l space due to the net loss(3sq’ of desk space now down to 1sq’) of required space. I believe the opposite is true nationally, that is there is a deficit of class” A “commercial space. I refer to my seniors in this area- Mssrs. Brogdon & Rotter(sounds like a good name for a law firm)
Coincidentally, I was discussing this very “doom and gloom” subject with one of my commercial tenants-
There is opportunity in chaos; good can come from crisis. To paraphrase the late Johnny Mercer-” Take a walk on the Sunny side of the Street”
S
Five comments is a new record for my blog. I did detect a bit of building industry defensiveness in the comments. Don’t worry we are going to need lots of new office space in the next decade and you are going to get to build it. In Singapore the average desk is half the size of a us desk and there are no cubicles. Competition!
Simon