Commentary: Apple Park and the trouble with modern workplaces

Commentary: Apple Park and the trouble with modern workplaces

It is pointless to build tech campuses like Apple Park and make people hot-desk, says the Financial Times’ John Gapper.

Steve Jobs Theater
A view of the Steve Jobs Theatre at Apple Park on September 12, 2017 in Cupertino, California. (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images/AFP)

LONDON: The iPhone X was the focus of Apple's launch event on Tuesday, but the venue was equally alluring. Chief executive Tim Cook unveiled the device in the Steve Jobs theatre, a sleek auditorium at Apple Park, its new head office in Cupertino.

Apple Park, a US$5 billion campus for 12,000 staff with a vast circular building surrounding a park planted with oaks and fruit trees, is an emblem of the US technology industry's latest craze. An industry of start-ups founded in garages wants to redesign employee activity, and prod engineers to get up from their desks and exchange ideas.

Apple Park is "a building which is pushing social behaviour in the way people work to new limits", says Stefan Behling of Foster + Partners, its architects, in an official video.

Apple is not alone: Amazon is planning for a US$5 billion second head office and chipmaker Nvidia has built a two-story office with spaces at its heart to "spark collisions".

Their collective vision is as ambitious as that of Louis Sullivan, the architect of early US skyscrapers whose 1896 essay The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered declared loftiness to be "on a high road to a natural and satisfying art".

In Apple Park and the like, the contrast is that instead of skyscrapers that split staff across floors, companies are building utopias in wide, flat campuses.

But people do not always enjoy sparking collisions, or having their social behaviour altered.


As senior director of real estate at Nvidia John O'Brien says: "Human beings do not like change, and engineers like it the least."

There is reason to be reluctant about being made to mingle - people often get most done when left in peace.

The guilty secret of many corporate transitions to open-plan offices and hot-desking is the desire to save money. As work patterns become more flexible and technology makes remote working easier, one study had earlier found that the average desk is only occupied about half the time.

Allocating everyone a locker and telling them to find a free desk when they arrive costs less.

The tech industry is innocent in that respect. Its main motivation for reconfiguring these campuses is not cost but revenue - and the belief that innovation springs out of collaboration and that is inhibited by walls and floors.

While everyone has his or her own workstation at both Apple and Nvidia, these new buildings also allow them to gather and huddle when working together on projects.

The Steve Jobs Theater at Apple's shiny new Apple Park campus in Cupertino, California. 


The idea behind this is "activity-based working", an approach to office design pioneered in the mid-1990s in the Netherlands by consulting firm Veldhoen at companies including insurer Interpolis.

The theory goes, rather than staying in one place, staff should move around zones during the working day, depending on whether they are working normally, focusing quietly or collaborating.

But this can create uncertainty for employees, who have a human tendency to gravitate to one spot.

I found myself to be one of such employees, when told that the Financial Times was considering activity-based working in its return to its former London head office.

Likewise, some Apple engineers have been reported to be dismayed at having to work in newly designed open-plan "pods" at Apple Park.


Activity-based working often does not operate as planned. A study by workplace research group Leesman found that while it boosts productivity, many employees stuck to familiar habits.

About 70 per cent of those in activity-based workplaces still anchored themselves to a single desk, which the study concluded made the office design "a catastrophic failure". It is a waste given the amount of ambition and money that goes into configuring these offices.

There must be something in it for employees or they will not change their ways, no matter how much companies abolish walls to create space or alter furniture.

Apple is holding their first special event at the new Apple Park campus
Attendees enter the Steve Jobs Theatre for a special event at Apple Park on September 12, 2017 in Cupertino, California. (Photo: AFP/ Justin Sullivan)

Companies should start by recognising what their employees fear losing. The architecture firm Gensler that designed Nvidia's new building pointed out in one study that workers face "less space, less privacy … more distractions" in open-plan offices. Many have to spend more hours working.

It seems opportunities for collaboration have to be balanced with "extended periods of uninterrupted focus".

Companies also need to accept that not every kind of professional works in a similar way. Some jobs require the kind of constant moving from communal discussions to individual focus that activity-based working is designed to facilitate.

In other cases, employees work most efficiently in one place every day and prodding them to migrate around the office is a pointless distraction.

Sullivan wrote influentially that "form follows function" and concluded that in skyscrapers, "tiers of typical offices, having the same unchanging function, shall continue in the same unchanging form". This was the early 20th century template: Floor upon floor of small offices, "similar to a cell in honeycomb, merely a compartment".

A century later, the need for uniformity has been eroded by changes in technology and working patterns. The office of the 21st century performs a variety of functions and has to take on various forms.

Silicon Valley's campuses will work if they are flexible enough to allow diversity, but not if they are technology utopias that try to re-engineer the behaviour of the people inside.

© 2017 The Financial Times Ltd 2017. All rights reserved. Not to be redistributed, copied or modified in any way.

Source: Financial Times/sl