New versus old: Should you stay or should you go?

Published on Mon 24 Aug 2009

If there’s one things businesses don’t like, it’s uncertainty. Even those that are undergoing profound changes themselves like to do their growing and changing in a relatively predictable environment. Their planning depends on it. Which is why the current uncertainty over the state of the economy can be seen as a bad thing, regardless of whether you believe things are getting better or not.

The current level of uncertainty means that firms are understandably cautious to one degree or another about planning for the longer term. The important thing is to never let this caution turn into paralysis. The potentially fatal consequences of treading water should always outweigh anxieties about what is yet to pass. Business decisions about growth, new product development and change should never be obstructed by fear of an uncertain future. But they should take it into account, of course.

As a business we are used to managing change with clients. As a result, one of the things we know for certain is that when it comes to growing or changing their businesses, there is a tendency for organisations to see a move to purpose-built new offices as being a better option than improving their current workplace or refurbishing other existing space. All too often this is because they assume that they can’t deal with change in an old building, be it a need to implement new technology or accommodate business growth. But they are often asking the wrong question. Instead of ‘where do we go from here?’ they should really ask ‘should we stay or should we go?’

In most cases, both the stay option or go option can be backed up by a strong business case. This is invariably based on a wide range of factors - from the economic to the personal - each of which may have a considerable impact on the organisation. Only after careful consideration of these factors does it then become possible to make the right decision.

However, we still need to challenge the notion that modern buildings must be better able than older buildings to meet the needs of a modern organisation. Often they are, but in many cases, older buildings can prove to be the better option. For example, buildings that predate the widespread use of electric lighting and air-conditioning may have better lighting and ventilation. They may also be more flexible in use. Modern buildings often have large floorplates, embedded services and low floor to ceiling heights which can limit their use. Older buildings are unlikely to have the same limitations so may actually be better suited to the needs of contemporary organisations.

In his book How Buildings Learn, author Stewart Brand outlines the process whereby buildings evolve over time to meet the changing needs of their occupants. He shows that intelligent renovation is just as effective and important as new design. Brand looks at the building as consisting of six layers, each of which functions on a different timescale. These range from the site itself which has a life cycle measured in centuries, through to the building (decades), interior fit out (years), technology (months), to stuff (days). An effective refurbishment or fit-out will depend on how well it resolves the tensions that exist between these elements.

With careful planning, a focus on the organisation’s strategic objectives and a multi-disciplinary approach, even century-old buildings can become outstanding contemporary workplaces that can meet current needs and be flexible enough to respond to future demands as we have discovered on recent projects as diverse as those for Pace Micros and Spirax Sarco, amongst others. More importantly, older buildings can even offer advantages over purpose-built new buildings in terms of cost, culture, adaptability and company image. Regardless of any ephemeral shifts in the economy, be they good or bad, firms must always build flexibility into their operations and consequently their buildings to help them develop their business on their own terms.