Over the past year Coronavirus has heralded a dramatic rise in home-working and an accompanying stream of editorials regarding the future of the office in a post-pandemic world. Much of the discourse surrounding the future of the office has been negative, forecasting the demise of office spaces as we know it and the rise of home-working as a permanent replacement fixture.

Informed by Marxist labor process theory and grounded in historical precedents regarding the evolution of interior office design and use, this paper begins to problematize post-pandemic office predictions, suggesting that while acute, the impacts of coronavirus on the long-term evolution and survival of the office may have been overstated.

By situating current debates regarding the future of the physical office within a historical and socio-political context, this paper questions the plausibility and efficacy of predicting futures of ‘the’ office. Instead of singular predictions regarding use of white-collar work spaces, this paper suggests that a multitude of space futures should be considered. Rather than a wholesale decline in office use, this paper suggests that while some highly-paid white-collar workers in fields with competitive job markets may be awarded the ability to work from home, the office as we know it will remain, and in fact intensify, for many lesser-paid, lesser-respected white-collar workers.

Through these explorations, this paper aims to add nuance to contemporary discussions, raising questions about who the average office worker is, which industries may see strong pushes for employees to return to their workplaces, and what this divide says about the role of the office in the shape of work.