The Coronavirus pandemic has brought unprecedented scrutiny upon the space of the office, its design, uses, and future. However, despite increased attention, decades-old assumptions and understandings about office spaces remain unquestioned. Recent literature continues to study and theorize the office as a space disconnected from the broader economic pressures and systems it resides within. This has led to a historiography which portrays the office as an ever-evolving and constantly-improving space targeted toward the specific execution of work duties and functions.

This paper argues that history of the office may more accurately be described as one of continuity, with the form and function of office spaces determined not by specific work functions, but by larger needs and machinations of capitalism.

Expanding on concepts proposed in Harry Braverman’s 1974 seminal volume Labor and Monopoly Capitalism, this paper posits that it is capital’s need to control not only the amount of work produced by laborers, but also the way in which work is carried out which forms the core motivator of office design. Utilizing Braverman’s labor process framework, this paper suggests that from the factory to the Googleplex, capital’s fundamental need to control how work is executed has led to the longevity of the open-office design.

Further, this paper suggests that in contrast to the remarkable continuity of the design of office spaces, the rationale and reasoning behind these designs – their ‘packaging’ has adapted over time to be applicable and palatable to a changing zeitgeist. The longevity of the open-plan office will be highlighted through exploration of three primary historical periods and designs – the turn of the twentieth century and the office-as-factory, the mid-century and the enlightened office, and the amenity-filled offices of the present day