Open Space: The Real Benefits, the Fixes for Its Problems, and the Companies That Made It Work

In the previous article, we looked at why the most-cited case for open-plan offices — “take down more walls, get more collaboration” — doesn’t hold up against the data, and at the real cost in terms of focus and noise. But it would be just as wrong to dismiss open space as a mistake in itself. The documented problems are real, but they are also well known, measured, and — most importantly — fixable. The companies that got concrete results didn’t simply knock down walls: they designed the space around how people actually work. Here are the real benefits, the fixes for the known problems, and three cases where this approach worked, backed by numbers.

The Real Benefits of Open Space (When Well Designed)

Efficient use of space, without sacrificing people

The most-cited case is The Edge in Amsterdam, the building designed for Deloitte that has become an international benchmark for sustainability and smart design. The designers found that most staff used a desk for only about a third of the working day: that’s why the building offers 1,100 workstations for 3,000 employees, organized around an activity-based model (seated desks, standing desks, work booths, meeting rooms, balcony seating, “concentration rooms”). The reasoning behind it is simple: staff costs are almost always higher than space costs, so investing in quality spaces that support wellbeing pays off more than maximizing square footage.

Wellbeing and talent attraction

Since the building opened, no employee has filed a complaint related to environmental comfort, and 72% of employees appreciate being able to independently adjust light and temperature through the dedicated app. Deloitte also reports that the building has become an important factor in attracting younger talent.

Perceived effectiveness, when change is well managed

In 2009, Macquarie Bank moved around 3,000 employees from its Banking and Financial Services division into the new One Shelley Street offices in Sydney, adopting an activity-based model to break down silos between different business units. 73% of staff said the change improved their perception of working at the company, and 55% felt more effective in the new way of working, compared with only 6% who felt less effective.

Measurable real-estate efficiency

Interpolis, a Dutch insurance company and one of the pioneering cases of “Het Nieuwe Werken” (literally, “the new way of working”), achieved a 45% reduction in occupied space and a 24% reduction in annual occupancy costs, turning the new work model into a distinctive element of its employer brand in the Dutch market.

The common thread running through these cases isn’t “more open space,” but more choice: giving people the ability to choose the right environment for whatever task they’re doing at that moment.

The Fixes for Known Problems

The noise, interruption, and privacy-loss problems documented in the research aren’t solved by abandoning the idea of open space, but by correcting the most common design mistakes.

Acoustics: the most-cited problem has measurable solutions

Several acoustic engineering studies show concrete results: adding sound-absorbing suspended ceilings can reduce sound pressure levels by about 6 decibels, and acoustic barriers reduce both perceived distraction and the minimum distance needed to guarantee conversational privacy. More “architectural” solutions work too: offices such as Amazon’s in Hyderabad have adopted sound-absorbing ceiling panels, while other organizations have experimented with green walls that serve both an aesthetic and an acoustic function.

Zoning by activity, not identical fixed desks for everyone

The most effective solution identified by both academic research and corporate case studies is to offer multiple types of space within the same environment: fully open areas for collaborative work, soundproof booths for phone calls, “concentration rooms” for deep individual work, and enclosed meeting rooms. This is exactly the model adopted by The Edge, where employees choose their space based on the type of activity — they have no assigned desk, but an app that helps them find the environment best suited to the moment.

Small interventions, not just renovations

A complex architectural project isn’t always necessary. In Bernstein’s research path at Harvard (the same study cited in the previous article for the drop in face-to-face interactions), it emerged that simply adding mobile whiteboards to open common areas increased interactions in those areas by 50% compared with identical open areas without whiteboards — a minimal intervention with a measurable impact.

Technology to match people with spaces

Booking and space-mapping apps, like the one used at The Edge in partnership with Mapiq, make it possible to find the right desk, room, or quiet space in real time, reducing the friction that normally discourages people from moving to the right environment.

Three Success Stories Compared Case Intervention Measured Result

The Edge, Activity-based working, zero Zero comfort complaints since opening; Amsterdam fixed desks, app for choosing 72% of employees satisfied with control (Deloitte) space over light/temperature; building cited as a talent-attraction factor

Macquarie Bank, Shift to activity-based 73% positive perception of the change; Sydney working to break down silos 55% feel more effective (only 6% feel between business units less effective)

Interpolis, “Het Nieuwe Werken”: -45% occupied space; -24% annual Netherlands shared spaces, fewer fixed occupancy costs; became a brand desks, more choice differentiator

Key Takeaways

Combined with the previous article, the picture becomes clearer: open space is neither a miracle solution nor the disaster it’s often made out to be. It’s a tool that works under two precise conditions:

1. It must be designed around activities, not density. The successful cases didn’t simply remove desks: they built a range of different environments and let people choose the right one for the task at hand.

2. It must address noise and privacy with concrete solutions, not ignore them: acoustics, dedicated booths, quiet zones. The data show these interventions work, and work measurably.

The useful question, once again, isn’t “open space, yes or no,” but: are we giving people the tools — physical and organizational — to choose the right environment for the work they need to do?

Main Sources

The Edge, Amsterdam — case studies by EDGE Technologies, PLP Architecture, Bloomberg, Schneider Electric.

Veldhoen + Company, Activity Based Working Case Study and Workplace Trends in the Netherlands (Macquarie Bank and Interpolis cases).

Bernstein, E. & Turban, S. (2018). The Impact of the ‘Open’ Workspace on Human Collaboration, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.

Acoustic engineering research on sound-absorbing suspended ceilings and acoustic barriers in open-space environments.