Companies need to use their office space well. They want a space that looks good for customers. They also need to give employees a comfortable place to work.

Which is better — a closed office or an open office? Companies like open offices because they use space efficiently and cost less. They are also easy to change. Studies show that workers can be more efficient as a team in an open space because they communicate better.

But most employees prefer closed offices. They like having their own space. They think they work better because there is less noise. Some jobs need quiet concentration, like writing or programming.

Companies need to use their office space efficiently. They want a space that projects a good image for visiting customers, while also providing comfortable and healthy conditions for employees — two goals that don't always align.

Which is better — a closed or an open-plan design? Companies favour open offices because they use space efficiently, cost less, and are flexible to reconfigure. Research also suggests teams communicate better without walls — questions get asked more easily, and junior staff can observe and learn from colleagues nearby.

On the other hand, most employees actually prefer closed offices. They value having their own space and believe they work better with less noise. Some roles demand deep concentration as well as collaboration — for creative tasks like writing, design, or programming, a quiet workspace matters enormously.

Open offices are not a new idea. Big open workplaces existed a long time before smartphones and startups. Clerical workers did their jobs in big, open rooms as early as the 1750s.

Look at old photos of a post office from 1872 — many people worked together in one large open room, with rows of desks close together. It looks a lot like a modern open office!

But for most of history, small private rooms were more common. By the 1900s, more and more people were spending their working day inside an office.

Open offices are not a modern invention created by tech startups. Clerical work was carried out in large, open spaces as early as the 1750s, and photographs of a US post office from 1872 show clerks working at rows of desks in one continuous open room — remarkably similar to today's open-plan spaces.

Despite these early examples, small private rooms remained the more typical layout for most of the 18th and 19th centuries. It was only by the early 1900s, as clerical and administrative work expanded rapidly, that ever larger numbers of people began spending their entire working day inside an office building.

This expansion set the stage for architects to begin asking a new question: how should all this office space actually be designed?

The famous architect Frank Lloyd Wright wanted offices to feel more open. In 1939, he designed a new headquarters for the SC Johnson company in Wisconsin, USA.

The building was a beautiful open office. Wright believed new materials like steel let him build in bold new ways. He even said that a building made of small, closed boxes felt unfree — he wanted architecture that felt open and democratic instead.

Wright designed everything himself — the tall, tree-shaped columns, the desks, and the chairs. There was lots of space between each desk. Wright said his design worked so well that employees started having tea together in the afternoon, and they didn't want to go home!

Frank Lloyd Wright, one of America's most celebrated architects, believed offices could be transformed from "a series of boxes and closets" into spaces with a genuine sense of openness. After experimenting with open-plan offices in Buffalo in 1909, he created his masterpiece thirty years later.

In 1939, the SC Johnson company commissioned Wright to design its new administrative headquarters in Racine, Wisconsin. The result was a stunning open office, made possible by innovative dendriform — tree-shaped — columns so slender they worried building inspectors. Natural light poured in through the ceiling, and visitors compared the effect to a cathedral.

Wright personally designed every desk and chair, leaving generous space between workstations, while managers received private offices on a mezzanine level above the open floor. Wright later claimed the design was so successful that staff began taking afternoon tea together and were reluctant to go home.

Copies of Wright's open office removed all his careful design. Offices became open, but without the beauty or the extra space. People began looking for a new solution.

In the 1950s, a movement started in Germany called Bürolandschaft, which means "office landscape." It made offices open, but arranged furniture in a flowing, flexible way instead of straight rows.

In America, a furniture company called Herman Miller created something similar called "Action Office." Its designer, Robert Propst, wanted furniture that broke up the open space and could be rearranged easily for different types of work.

As companies copied Wright's open office without his careful attention to detail, the results were often crowded, poorly lit spaces that captured none of the original's quality. This gap between the ideal and the imitation created demand for a new approach.

Starting in Germany in the 1950s, a movement called Bürolandschaft — literally "office landscape" — reached America by the 1960s. Rather than arranging desks in rigid, boxy rows, it organised offices in a fluid, organic layout, keeping the space open while allowing much greater flexibility.

Herman Miller pursued a parallel idea with its "Action Office" system, designed by Robert Propst. Rather than fixed desks, it used specially designed, modular furniture that broke up open space into distinct zones, allowing for easy interaction as well as easy rearrangement as teams and tasks changed.

Just like Wright's design, Bürolandschaft and Action Office were also copied badly. Companies kept the walls and dividers, but forgot the flexibility and careful planning behind them.

Over time, thoughtful designs slowly became something much worse: the cubicle. Rows of small, grey boxes filled offices everywhere. People felt trapped and unhappy.

Today's "cool" open offices are often a reaction against hated cubicles. But many of them also lack the careful design of Wright's building, or the smart flexibility of Bürolandschaft. In some ways, we ended up with the worst parts of both ideas.

History repeated itself. As companies copied Bürolandschaft and Action Office, they preserved the visible feature — partitions dividing the space — while discarding the underlying purpose: flexibility, thoughtful furniture design, and attention to how people actually work.

The result, over subsequent decades, was the modern cubicle farm — endless grids of small, semi-enclosed workstations that offered neither the privacy of a closed office nor the collaborative energy of a truly open one.

Contemporary open-plan offices are, in part, a reaction against cubicle culture. But many modern open offices repeat the same historical mistake: they adopt the appearance of openness — removing walls to reduce real estate costs — without the design investment that made Wright's or Herman Miller's spaces genuinely effective.

High Crest Electronics has an office in a city centre. It is old, and there is not enough space. The managers want to redesign it, so they are considering two different proposals from an architect.

The company boss wants a big private office to impress visiting customers, and an open-plan area so they can see what everyone is doing. A programmer wants a closed office for quiet concentration, but also a social area for coffee breaks.

An accountant doesn't mind open or closed space, but wants more room — the workstations feel too small. A receptionist prefers open plan because it has natural light and feels less isolated, with more social contact during the day.

High Crest Electronics occupies an old, cramped city-centre office and is now weighing two competing redesign proposals from an architect — one that management must reconcile with very different staff priorities.

The company boss wants a large private office to impress visiting clients, paired with an open-plan floor for the rest of the team so management can maintain visibility over daily operations. A programmer, by contrast, wants an enclosed office for uninterrupted concentration, while still valuing an informal social area for coffee and conversation.

An accountant is relatively indifferent to open versus closed layouts but is frustrated by cramped workstations and wants considerably more room. The receptionist strongly favours the open-plan option, citing access to natural light and a preference for the social contact and reduced isolation that open layouts provide.

When we compare two things, we can use these words and phrases:

• Comparatives: "An open office is cheaper than a closed office." / "Closed offices are quieter."
• Compared to / Compared with: "Compared to a closed office, an open office is easier to change."
• But / However: "Open offices save money. However, they can be noisy."
• Both... and...: "Both open and closed offices have advantages."
• On the other hand: "Open offices help teamwork. On the other hand, closed offices help concentration."

Practice: Use these phrases to compare open and closed offices, or to compare Frank Lloyd Wright's office design with a modern cubicle farm.

Comparing and contrasting workspace types requires a specific set of connectors and structures. Here are the most useful for discussing office design:

• Unlike / Whereas: "Whereas open offices prioritise flexibility, closed offices prioritise privacy."
• In contrast to: "In contrast to Wright's carefully designed open office, most modern imitations lack attention to detail."
• Similarly / Likewise: "Bürolandschaft aimed for flexibility. Likewise, Action Office used modular furniture to allow rearrangement."
• While: "While open-plan layouts reduce real estate costs, they can also reduce concentration on demanding tasks."
• The main/key difference is: "The key difference between Bürolandschaft and a cubicle farm is flexibility."

Note: Choose contrastive connectors (whereas, unlike) when highlighting a genuine trade-off, and additive connectors (similarly, likewise) when two things share an underlying goal despite different execution.

• Open vs closed: Open offices are cheaper and help teamwork, but many employees prefer closed offices for quiet, focused work.
• Not a new idea: Open offices existed as early as the 1750s — a post office from 1872 already looked like a modern open-plan space.
• Frank Lloyd Wright: In 1939, Wright designed a beautiful, carefully planned open office for SC Johnson, with tree-shaped columns and custom furniture.
• Bürolandschaft & Action Office: These 1950s–60s movements kept offices open but focused on flexibility — until they too were badly copied.
• Language focus: Use comparatives and phrases like "compared to," "on the other hand," and "unlike" to compare open and closed office designs.

• The core trade-off: Open offices save money and can improve team communication; closed offices better support concentration and are what most employees actually prefer.
• A long history: Open-plan clerical work dates to the 1750s. Wright's 1939 SC Johnson building proved that open offices, designed with real care, could be genuinely excellent.
• The "copy of a copy" pattern: Wright's design, then Bürolandschaft, then Action Office — each was thoughtfully designed, and each was degraded through careless imitation into cramped, poorly planned spaces, eventually producing the cubicle farm.
• Comparing workspaces: Use connectors like whereas, in contrast to, similarly, while to compare office design movements precisely and highlight genuine trade-offs.
• The case study: Different roles (boss, programmer, accountant, receptionist) often want different things from an office — good design requires balancing these needs, not applying one layout to everyone.