For general urbanism.
And, as I intend to go on, I start at a pitch of utter fury:
QuoteNo true 'city of culture' should dishonour the bold ideals of its postwar rebirth
Rowan Moore
Plans for the centre of Coventry claim to offer a sense of place, but ignore its pioneering mid-century reconstruction
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/c3de469beda5fd634e49d7a74b86a2d314ce9b90/0_0_6000_3600/master/6000.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=0ae51c4502d9f9ab7f55c5316d1e41d2)
Coventry's new cathedral – connected movingly to the bombed remains of its predecessor. Photograph: David Warren/Alamy
Sun 17 Jan 2021 08.45 GMT
Coventry is UK City of Culture 2021, a title that focuses attention on its contribution to the cultural life of the nation: 1980s two-tone music, the legend of Lady Godiva, and its role in the development of the bicycle and car industries. And, high on this list, the fact that it was the pre-eminent example of reconstruction after wartime bombing.
Among the most devastated cities, Coventry was also one of the most determined and thoughtful in its reconstruction. This was partly expressed by its new cathedral, which brought together leading art and architecture, and connected movingly with the ruins of its predecessor. It was also expressed by the city centre, rebuilt as a series of human-scaled, pedestrian-friendly precincts. Here, too, the idea was for art and architecture to work together.
The proposed redevelopment of much of the centre, by the London-based Shearer Property Group and Chapman Taylor architects, in a joint venture with Coventry city council, would obliterate much of this legacy. The designs show little sympathy for what would remain. Although it promises an "authentic sense of place", and a purported but extremely vague resemblance to the pre-war historic fabric of the city, it is generic, could-be-anywhere stuff, not fundamentally different from developments "global architects and masterplanners" Chapman Taylor might design anywhere in the world.
Coventry's "culture" and sense of place, the things that make it different from other cities, must surely include the brave ideals of its postwar renewal. As heritage campaigners rightly point out, it can take a long time for the value of architectural styles to be appreciated, by which time it is too late for the buildings that have been demolished. It happened with Victorian architecture, derided for decades, and it is happening now with mid-century modernism.
This is not to say everything about postwar Coventry should be sacrosanct. No one, looking at it now, could deny that it would benefit from some regeneration. It has to respond, like city centres everywhere, to the recession of retail and whatever challenges the post-pandemic world might bring. Some ideas behind the original plans, such as a determination to put car parks on as many roof-tops as possible, may have outlived whatever usefulness they once had.
But the starting point for any regeneration should be an appreciation of the work of the postwar rebuilders. This would mean a serious attempt to learn from their intentions and draw inspiration from the best of their work. It would mean celebrating William Mitchell's remarkable relief sculpture, rather than consigning it to a so-far unspecified "appropriate place". It might mean bringing the best out of the existing buildings of the Bull Yard, rather than replacing them, as is currently proposed, with a weak imitation of London's Covent Garden market.
Chapman Taylor's view, expressed in a video on its website, is that the postwar work is largely worthless and should be replaced with variegated buildings and street patterns that existed before the second world war. But it is delusional to think that this lost Coventry could come back, and there is little in the designs to suggest that it would. With their hostility to what is actually there, they create an unnecessary conflict between heritage and regeneration.
So the Twentieth Century Society is insisting that certain features be retained, while the council and developers chafe at what they see as pernickety obstructions to the march of progress. An avoidable zero-sum game is set up.
For Coventry can be renewed, at the same time as the past 80 years of its history – ever since its bombing in 1940 – can be respected. All it takes is a bit of intelligent and sensitive design.
There's no doubt there's bits of Coventry that could be regenerated but pieces like the William Mitchell mural mentioned are iconic:
(https://www.coventrysociety.org.uk/js/plugins/imagemanager/files/cov_soc/William_Michell_-_three-tuns-wall_combined.jpg)
But I thought maybe the plans on the pre-war streetplan could be interesting so I had a look. And it turns out the extent of their imagination is "build an out-of-town retail park, but in the city centre" :bleeding: :ultra:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Er8TsCeXcAAERp8?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Er8TsCiXEAY3skU?format=jpg&name=small)
I mean say what you want about the post-war architects at least they were motivated by a genuine social and aesthetic conviction. This is just a void. It's shopping centre architecture that could be literally anywhere. This is a bit like the trees in Sheffield, if I lived there I would become a crazed single issue activist.
Is that butt crack CGI?
Think belt loop
Even putting aesthetics aside a generic traditional shopping centre would appear to be a bad choice in 2021.
I'm currently doing a fair bit of reading on T Dan Smith. Plan to make a mini documentary about his works.
It is annoying how much he gets the blame for all that is bad in newcastle.
Oddly however amidst the moans of concrete blocks the true worst excesses of the mid 20th century in trying to build motorways everywhere rarely attract a complaint.
As to Coventry and its plans... Yes. Awful idea. Too often these days new retail ends up poorly occupied.
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2021, 03:05:07 AM
Too often these days new retail ends up poorly occupied.
Yes, but often because of ludicrously high rent to cover for the inevitable construction cost overruns.
Did not know the need for renewing Coventry city centre was so urgent. The "twin cathedrals" was quite a moving sight, when I was there for an internship, in the late '90s.
Does the lady Godiva parade really need a massive urban project anyways?
The only way to do cities right -
(https://i.imgur.com/BwEazV3.jpg)
(https://earthlymission.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ideal_city.jpg)
Not enough brutalism.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 18, 2021, 10:50:05 AM
Not enough brutalism.
Speaking of which, this icon is being demolished now :weep:
(https://www.newsobserver.com/latest-news/7w11q8/picture245830390/alternates/FREE_1140/1969.03-02.03.0017.jpg)
If we destroy these buildings we'll have nowhere to film near future dystopias :(
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsBnKrqXAAQ2zgw?format=jpg&name=small)
A cross-section :wub:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsBrVFQW8A0LthT?format=jpg&name=small)
Edit: Some pictures from the interior - phwoar :wub:
https://wearethemutants.com/2019/07/25/building-with-meaning-burroughs-wellcome-corporate-headquarters-1972/
Quote from: Monoriu on January 18, 2021, 07:08:50 AM
The only way to do cities right -
(https://i.imgur.com/BwEazV3.jpg)
Occasionally you can see Geryon ferrying people between the 7th and 8th circles.
QuoteI mean say what you want about the post-war architects at least they were motivated by a genuine social and aesthetic conviction. This is just a void. It's shopping centre architecture that could be literally anywhere. This is a bit like the trees in Sheffield, if I lived there I would become a crazed single issue activist.
I don't agree. Many were motivated solely by aesthetics and couldn't care less about the people who would live in or use their buildings. Nor did they care about what anyone else thought about their designs. They were the experts and everyone else was an idiot with no stake at all in how buildings and cities should look. The Hunstand school designed by Alison and Peter Smithson is a typical example. Much admired by Brutalist devotees, it was freezing in winter and boiling in summer. There are thousands of examples of appalling design of social housing apparently designed to faciliatate muggings and rape, minimise social interaction and required huge maintenance costs which led to decay and deriliction. A typical example I worked on years ago (Myatts Field) was designed so that neighbours would never know each other because their front doors were on opposite sides of the towers.
To the extent that they were interested in anything other than aesthetics, they took a macro view, working hand in glove with planners (and most masterplanners were of course architects).
Coventry is good example as the first example of a post-war planned reconstruction. The City centre isn't bad, although it's very dated and the Cathedral is a gem. But the whole centre is encircled by a ring road impassable to pedestrians except via a couple of dingy, piss stinking underpasses. The couple of tiny parcels of green spaces are right next to the ring road. Coventry was planned for cars, not people.
Thankfully by the time the architects and planners (and Abercrombie was both) got to London with their appalling plan to demolish its history (including the whole of Covent Garden) and construct three concentic motorways with links throughout in its place, residents had woken up to the fact that architects didn't care that cities are meant to be lived in and fought a furious regard action to save the capital from the fate of cities like Plymouth. Next time you drive along the Westway (the largest part often Abercrombie plan that was realised) think of the whole city divided into impermeable segments and dominated by cars and lorries like that part of West London is. It's a testament of how little the architects and planners thought about the people that live in cities.
Makes Le Corbusier and the like look like geniuses, despite their blundering. There was even a word for that, sarcellite, from a now infamous suburb of Paris full of high rises.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2021, 12:03:39 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 18, 2021, 07:08:50 AM
The only way to do cities right -
(https://i.imgur.com/BwEazV3.jpg)
Occasionally you can see Geryon ferrying people between the 7th and 8th circles.
I don't think I've ever been in a building that high.
Quote from: Gups on January 20, 2021, 04:28:43 AM
QuoteI mean say what you want about the post-war architects at least they were motivated by a genuine social and aesthetic conviction. This is just a void. It's shopping centre architecture that could be literally anywhere. This is a bit like the trees in Sheffield, if I lived there I would become a crazed single issue activist.
I don't agree. Many were motivated solely by aesthetics and couldn't care less about the people who would live in or use their buildings. Nor did they care about what anyone else thought about their designs. They were the experts and everyone else was an idiot with no stake at all in how buildings and cities should look. The Hunstand school designed by Alison and Peter Smithson is a typical example. Much admired by Brutalist devotees, it was freezing in winter and boiling in summer. There are thousands of examples of appalling design of social housing apparently designed to faciliatate muggings and rape, minimise social interaction and required huge maintenance costs which led to decay and deriliction. A typical example I worked on years ago (Myatts Field) was designed so that neighbours would never know each other because their front doors were on opposite sides of the towers.
To the extent that they were interested in anything other than aesthetics, they took a macro view, working hand in glove with planners (and most masterplanners were of course architects).
Coventry is good example as the first example of a post-war planned reconstruction. The City centre isn't bad, although it's very dated and the Cathedral is a gem. But the whole centre is encircled by a ring road impassable to pedestrians except via a couple of dingy, piss stinking underpasses. The couple of tiny parcels of green spaces are right next to the ring road. Coventry was planned for cars, not people.
Thankfully by the time the architects and planners (and Abercrombie was both) got to London with their appalling plan to demolish its history (including the whole of Covent Garden) and construct three concentic motorways with links throughout in its place, residents had woken up to the fact that architects didn't care that cities are meant to be lived in and fought a furious regard action to save the capital from the fate of cities like Plymouth. Next time you drive along the Westway (the largest part often Abercrombie plan that was realised) think of the whole city divided into impermeable segments and dominated by cars and lorries like that part of West London is. It's a testament of how little the architects and planners thought about the people that live in cities.
Agreed. I feel like the most charitable one could say is that in some instances they built buildings to encourage people to live how they thought people should ideally live.
Quote from: Gups on January 20, 2021, 04:28:43 AM
I don't agree. Many were motivated solely by aesthetics and couldn't care less about the people who would live in or use their buildings. Nor did they care about what anyone else thought about their designs. They were the experts and everyone else was an idiot with no stake at all in how buildings and cities should look. The Hunstand school designed by Alison and Peter Smithson is a typical example. Much admired by Brutalist devotees, it was freezing in winter and boiling in summer. There are thousands of examples of appalling design of social housing apparently designed to faciliatate muggings and rape, minimise social interaction and required huge maintenance costs which led to decay and deriliction. A typical example I worked on years ago (Myatts Field) was designed so that neighbours would never know each other because their front doors were on opposite sides of the towers.
To the extent that they were interested in anything other than aesthetics, they took a macro view, working hand in glove with planners (and most masterplanners were of course architects).
Coventry is good example as the first example of a post-war planned reconstruction. The City centre isn't bad, although it's very dated and the Cathedral is a gem. But the whole centre is encircled by a ring road impassable to pedestrians except via a couple of dingy, piss stinking underpasses. The couple of tiny parcels of green spaces are right next to the ring road. Coventry was planned for cars, not people.
I don't disagree with any of this - although I think Coventry city centre would be better served by having existing structures regenerated with some new developments rather than levelled because it is an historically and culturally important example of a post-war town.
But I think they were still motivated by as I say aesthetics and a social motivation of the society they thought was going to be the future. It was all too often imposed - I think the world's largest architectural practice was once the GLC planning department - without involvement from actual people, but that was true of the whole post-war model. And some of the work was shoddy, some of it was really interesting, all of it is a part of our heritage and we need to start protecting it - at least the good or particularly important stuff.
QuoteThankfully by the time the architects and planners (and Abercrombie was both) got to London with their appalling plan to demolish its history (including the whole of Covent Garden) and construct three concentic motorways with links throughout in its place, residents had woken up to the fact that architects didn't care that cities are meant to be lived in and fought a furious regard action to save the capital from the fate of cities like Plymouth. Next time you drive along the Westway (the largest part often Abercrombie plan that was realised) think of the whole city divided into impermeable segments and dominated by cars and lorries like that part of West London is. It's a testament of how little the architects and planners thought about the people that live in cities.
Yes but also their confidence that what they were building would be the future, not the redundant street-plans/Victorian monstrosities etc. And a reminder that car-dominated cities are choices not inevitable.
Proposed new skyscraper in New York - I kind of like it :hmm:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsMg_OmXcAA4B7A?format=jpg&name=medium)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsMg_MoXcAEPW1f?format=jpg&name=900x900)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsMg_NnXUAYt4Rr?format=jpg&name=900x900)
:rolleyes:
It looks really trippy and sci-fi ish. But isn't it "wasting" quite a lot of buildable space in that internal hole? That must be really expensive to leave on the table, so to speak.
Its pretty for sure. But yes, very wasteful. And all that glass.... Fuck the environment.
This is an actual serious proposal or one of those nutty things architecture firms do in their spare time for press?
Quote from: Tyr on January 22, 2021, 09:08:11 AM
Its pretty for sure. But yes, very wasteful. And all that glass.... Fuck the environment.
This is an actual serious proposal or one of those nutty things architecture firms do in their spare time for press?
I also like it. Don't care about any waste, though (if it incorporated solar panelling in the right way, that interior space could be of some benefit).
From what I can find on the internets, doesn't look serious at all.
Quote from: Tyr on January 22, 2021, 09:08:11 AM
Its pretty for sure. But yes, very wasteful. And all that glass.... Fuck the environment.
This is an actual serious proposal or one of those nutty things architecture firms do in their spare time for press?
Fairly sure it's not serious - if it was it would just be another reflective phallus in the sky <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 22, 2021, 10:15:40 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 22, 2021, 09:08:11 AM
Its pretty for sure. But yes, very wasteful. And all that glass.... Fuck the environment.
This is an actual serious proposal or one of those nutty things architecture firms do in their spare time for press?
Fairly sure it's not serious - if it was it would just be another reflective phallus in the sky <_<
Temples to capitalism.
Quote from: mongers on January 22, 2021, 10:32:06 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 22, 2021, 10:15:40 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 22, 2021, 09:08:11 AM
Its pretty for sure. But yes, very wasteful. And all that glass.... Fuck the environment.
This is an actual serious proposal or one of those nutty things architecture firms do in their spare time for press?
Fairly sure it's not serious - if it was it would just be another reflective phallus in the sky <_<
Temples to capitalism.
I'm not sure how this shiny disco eyesore as shown in images 2 and 3 would be any better in that regard.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 22, 2021, 07:27:10 AM
Proposed new skyscraper in New York - I kind of like it :hmm:
You would :P
Quote from: mongers on January 22, 2021, 10:32:06 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 22, 2021, 10:15:40 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 22, 2021, 09:08:11 AM
Its pretty for sure. But yes, very wasteful. And all that glass.... Fuck the environment.
This is an actual serious proposal or one of those nutty things architecture firms do in their spare time for press?
Fairly sure it's not serious - if it was it would just be another reflective phallus in the sky <_<
Temples to capitalism.
Technically... surely not?
All that sellable floor space wasted in favour of aesthetics. :p :contract:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/feb/11/is-this-the-future-for-britain-stockton-on-tees-park-high-street?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB
Quote
Bulldoze the high street and build a giant park: is Stockton the future of Britain?
What do you do when M&S, Debenhams and New Look are all gone? Knock down the shopping centre and replace it with a riverside oasis. Could the 'visionary' plan of Stockton-on-Tees spark a revolution?
Oliver Wainwright
Oliver Wainwright
@ollywainwright
Thu 11 Feb 2021 03.00 EST
Last modified on Thu 11 Feb 2021 04.15 EST
2,104
558
An empty Debenhams, a shuttered Marks & Spencer, an abandoned New Look: the town centre of Stockton-on-Tees has suffered a similar fate to countless high streets up and down the UK, struggling to survive in the online shopping, Covid-stricken era. But, while some towns scramble to convert empty department stores into flats, or fill vacant shops with community pop-ups and urban farms, Stockton Council has come up with an altogether bolder proposition for the post-retail age. It plans to demolish half the high street and replace it with a park.
"The government asked for 'transformational' proposals for our high streets," says councillor Nigel Cooke, cabinet member for regeneration. "If this is not transformational, I don't know what is." If the plans go ahead, the project will see an ailing shopping arcade ripped up and replaced with a riverside park three times the size of Trafalgar Square, providing grandstand views across a bucolic scene of rowing, sailing and waterside promenading along the Tees. As retail continues to retreat, might our future high streets embrace the great outdoors?
"Ever since Woolworths closed in 2008, Stockton Council has been rethinking what the town centre should be," says Cooke. "The future is not more shops. It's about leisure, culture, events and recreation, and making it a nice place for people to simply be."
Blocking river views ... Castlegate shopping centre in Stockton-on-Tees.
Blocking river views ... Castlegate shopping centre in Stockton-on-Tees. Photograph: Robert Lazenby/Alamy
Advertisement
Standing in the council's sights is the Castlegate shopping centre, a tired 1970s retail arcade, hotel and multistorey carpark designed by the notorious architect John Poulson. Stretching over 300 metres along the eastern side of Stockton high street, the building acts as a blunt brick barrier between the town centre and the river, blocking any sense that Stockton is indeed on-Tees. Described by one local blog as "the biggest act of vandalism since Oliver Cromwell demolished Stockton Castle during the civil war", Poulson's project trampled a network of Victorian streets that led down to the river, replacing the alleyways with an impermeable, intractable lump, and compounding the sense of severance inflicted by a dual carriageway along the river's edge. In 1973, a year after the Castlegate centre opened, Poulson was jailed for his role in a web of corruption, bribery and fraud across the north of England, but his legacy would continue to blight Stockton for decades to come.
You can see why they turned their back on the river in the 60s. It was black. Now we have salmon swimming and rowers gliding through town
"You can see why they wanted to turn their back on the river in the 1960s," says Cooke. "It was black. The industry had made it so polluted that there weren't any fish in it for years, but now we have salmon swimming and rowers gliding through town. The river is a real asset. We're not ashamed of it any more."
The provisional designs, drawn up by Ryder Architecture and unveiled today, depict a new land-bridge covering part of the riverside road (which will be reduced to two lanes), connecting the high street to the river with a cascading series of steps, forming an informal amphitheatre facing the waterfront. The park itself will include an extension of the market square at the northern end, with space for adjacent restaurants and cafes to spill out on to, along with an undulating playground area, and a large circular lawn for outdoor events. Two new buildings at the southern end of the site will potentially house a new central library, customer service centre and council headquarters, with the council planning to consolidate its 10 existing offices into two.
'We're not ashamed of it any more' ... a park instead of shops.
'We're not ashamed of it any more' ... a park instead of shops. Photograph: Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council/Ryder
Advertisement
As part of a strategy to concentrate the shops in one place, Castlegate's existing tenants are being offered the option to move into empty units in the nearby Wellington Square shopping centre, which the council also acquired in 2019. Both had vacancy levels of around 30%, but this way it is hoped they will form one commercially viable centre. To fund the riverside project, the council has secured a total of £36.5m from the Tees Valley Combined Authority and the Government's Future High Streets Fund, and plans to contribute a further £5m, as well as committing to deliver the offices, at around £30m, to be confirmed in the next phase.
"It's incredibly bold for a council to be operating like this," says Bill Grimsey, former Iceland chief executive and author of several national reviews on the future of high streets, which have urged a move away from retail. "Stockton is probably the best example in the UK of a town that's recognised that shops are not going to be the mainstay of town-centre survival in the 21st century and we need to do something radical about it."
Castlegate shopping centre in the 80s.
Castlegate shopping centre in the 80s. Photograph: Castlegate Centre
A consultation exercise found that 80% of respondents were in favour of demolishing Castlegate, and the Twentieth Century Society is not objecting, but the building is not entirely without its fans. Local film-maker Jonathan Thompson describes parts of the interior as "absolutely stunning", the soaring, geometric ceiling above the food court as "like a modernist cathedral". His photographs of the space convey the drama of the original vision, and he urges that at least the market hall and spiralling car park ramp are somehow incorporated into the redevelopment plans. With retrofit and reuse at the forefront of the environmental agenda, given the huge amount of embodied energy locked into existing buildings, demolition should only ever be a last resort; but the council insists that reusing parts of the Castlegate centre would be unviable here.
Advertisement
A few Poulson ruins dotted around the site would add a poetically Ozymandian touch, and they might help to mitigate the potential sense of agoraphobia. The plans currently envisage a gargantuan amount of public space for a town of 85,000 people – particularly when it is located right next to the widest high street in the UK. Could it all end up feeling like a barren, windswept expanse, a gaping void in the town's heart?
Hotspot ... crowds at an event by town hall.
Hotspot ... crowds at an event by town hall. Photograph: Dave Charnley Photography
Cooke is confident that Stockton has the energy to fill it. "We are very much an events town," he says. "The international riverside festival pulls in hundreds of thousands of people from across the country each year, and we've held international athletics and cycling championships on the high street before." The park's success will rest on the finer detail of the design, and Ryder don't have the kind of track record in public realm and landscape design that inspires the confidence they will really pull it off. The council says it is currently "reviewing procurement options" to develop the design, and intends to "engage a contractor at an early stage to maximise innovation and buildability" – which makes the chances of an architectural competition seem sadly unlikely.
Advertisement
But the social and cultural life that the park will hopefully support might trump niggles over the design. Annabel Turpin, director of Stockton's ARC theatre and arts centre, describes the riverside proposals as "visionary", and sees the park as a canvas for extending the theatre's programme of performances. She moved to Stockton in 2008 and has witnessed a range of improvements that have transformed the town centre, "from feeling like a neglected northern town into a place you'd be proud to show someone around". She cites new paving, street furniture, lighting and a big fountain for kids to play in, along with the Stockton Flyer kinetic sculpture , which cheerfully erupts from its plinth in a mad cloud of steam and clanging bells every lunchtime. The council is also funding the refurbishment of the Globe theatre, a 1930s art deco gem, nearing completion at the top end of the high street, and has even built a hotel nearby.
Another successful initiative, highlighted in the Grimsey review, has been the transformation of a former department store into an "enterprise arcade", where startup businesses can take space for as little as £10 a day to try out their format. Around 15 former tenants have already moved into more prominent units in the town centre, aided by £5,000 council grants to help them refurbish vacant shops.
"As the big national chain stores move online, we're seeing a real growth in independent retailers," says Rachel Anderson, assistant director of policy at the North East Chamber of Commerce. "Stockton has been first out of the blocks to intervene in the market and facilitate these new businesses, and others are following suit. Middlesbrough council recently bought one of its shopping centres to repurpose into a leisure destination, while others are looking at everything from escape rooms to crazy golf." As anchor tenants depart, there are opportunities for different kinds of uses appearing on high streets, from medical centres to educational colleges. The kinds of things that are often stranded on the outskirts could help to bring life back to the core.
As embattled council leaders across the country face the quandary of what to do with their struggling, post-pandemic town centres, they would do well to look at Stockton, quietly leading the way.
Little indicators of changes to cities after covid:
Quote- HSBC said the bank expected to shrink its property footprint by 40%
- Lloyds said it would reduce office space by 20%
- BT is cutting its UK offices from 300 to just 30
Meanwhile I saw a fairly negative reaction to some from the Canary Wharf Group who was on the news saying people are tired of working from home and really want to go back to the office so we shouldn't write them off yet :lol:
I've also seen the odd story in the legal press of law firms that were looking for new offices are either deciding not to move office, or significantly shrinking the amount of space they require.
Both are right. People really are sick of working from home.
But at the same time they're not keen to go back to a new 5 days a week, 9 to 5 in a shitty business park on the arse end of nowhere.
Flexible offices and collaboration spaces are where its at.
Quote from: Tyr on March 02, 2021, 06:27:51 AM
Both are right. People really are sick of working from home.
But at the same time they're not keen to go back to a new 5 days a week, 9 to 5 in a shitty business park on the arse end of nowhere.
Flexible offices and collaboration spaces are where its at.
Agreed. BT are calling their new 30 hubs "collaboration and knowledge spaces" not offices :lol:
And I'd like to go in and see colleagues - but if I never have to regularly commute again, I will be very happy.
Although in my experience when things were re-opening all of the people who were missing the office and wanting to go back in a few days a week were partners - which I feel says something, but I'm not sure what. I feel like in the future I'd probably actually try and coordinate with colleagues I like so we go into the office on the same day and catch a drink afterwards etc.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 02, 2021, 06:34:20 AM
Although in my experience when things were re-opening all of the people who were missing the office and wanting to go back in a few days a week were partners - which I feel says something, but I'm not sure what. I feel like in the future I'd probably actually try and coordinate with colleagues I like so we go into the office on the same day and catch a drink afterwards etc.
Best part of the office day, specially in Britain. :bowler:
I was doing a few days a week before the pandemic so would be happy to see that again. Having a set schedule of when in and when not in, made it easy for my team to coordinate.