Abstract
The office is a dynamic instrument of power, which throughout history, evolved from a disciplinary enclosure to a modulatory apparatus that regulates behavior. Moving beyond the notion of the office as a neutral workspace, this research discusses how architectural forms actively mediate power relations within organizational contexts. The conceptual trajectory is built around five thematic layers that chronologically map the development of the open office. It begins with early twentieth-century disciplinary open-plan layouts, moving to the emergence of immaterial labor within a leisure-oriented post-industrial welfare state, then considers the integration of control theory into organizational thinking, further exploring the adoption of communication-driven methods rooted in cybernetic thinking, and ending with the spatial realization of these ideas: Bürolandschaft (office landscape) in post-war Germany.
Central to this study is the research question: how do landscaped office plans reflect the spatial traces of power relations in workspace organization? To address this, a set of original Bürolandschaft plans from the 1960s and 1970s is analyzed, revealing how shifts in labor practices and management theory are embedded in architectural form. The analysis shows that offices are designed not only to accommodate work, but to guide circulation, increase efficiency, and balance autonomy with self-regulation. Bürolandschaft is read as a flexible spatial innovation in contrast to rigidity and rationality of modernizm, an embodiment of organizational principles based on cybernetics, a response to evolving expectations of communication and collaboration, a materialization of labor ideology in the post-industrial workplace, and a pioneer to modern open-office practices.
Keywords:
bürolandschaft, office landscape, cybernetics,
immaterial labor, control society
1.
Conceptual Trajectory
This research emerges from a fundamental contradiction apparent in popular media: the depiction of the office cubicle as a symbol of dystopian, hostile work environments, characterized by monotony and alienation. This widely accepted cultural image stands in opposition to the historical reality that these flexible office systems, known as Bürolandschaft(office landscape), evolved from a movement intended to liberate the worker and humanize the workplace.
Two recent portrayals of bureaucratic labor, embodying how contemporary culture imagines the office as a site of psychological confinement, are TV series Andor (2022) and Severance (2022). In Andor (Figure 1a), the Imperial Security Bureau’s (ISB) vast and sterile open plan presents an endless field of uniform desks. Its muted palette and harsh lighting reinforce an authoritarian system that portrays white-collar labor as a form of punishment. The ISB office becomes a carefully sanitized environment where individuality is dissolved and workers function as expandable components. The monotonous desk job is pictured as a discipline method more agonizing than a prison sentence for the demoted imperial officer Syril Karn. Severance (Figure 1b) deploys a similarly oppressive spatial language: an uncanny, hyper-controlled interior with green carpeting, cold fluorescent lights on a suspended ceiling, and white walls framing a four-person workstation placed right at the center of an otherwise empty office floor. This space visualizes the estrangement of employees whose work seems senseless yet “mysterious and important” (a line often repeated by the main protagonist of the show, Mark S., stressing the strange air of the Severed Floor) turning routine administrative tasks into a surreal and disorienting program. Across both examples, the open office becomes a dystopian mechanism of control and psychological torment, using architectural monotony and spatial standardization to communicate the dehumanizing conditions of contemporary immaterial labor.
Figure 1. a: Cubicles in the open plan space of the Imperial Security Bureau (ISB) (Screenshot from Tony Gilroy’s Andor, 2022). b: Macrodata Refinement (MDR) department at the Severed Floor of Lumon Industries (Onur Inci, 2025).
Beginning from this critical context, present study examines how the office has shifted from a disciplinary enclosure to a modulatory apparatus of control, arguing that architectural forms shape and distribute power, instead of simply accommodating it. The conceptual trajectory of the paper (Figure 2) is structured around five thematic layers that trace the chronological evolution of the open office: the emergence of early twentieth century disciplinary open plan layouts, the transition towards immaterial labor within a leisure-oriented post-industrial society, the introduction of control theory into organizational thinking, the growing influence of communication-driven methods rooted in cybernetics, and the spatial realization of these shifts in the form of Bürolandschaft. This framework allows the paper to present how evolving organizational theories spatially materialized.
To explore the research question “how do landscaped office plans reflect the spatial traces of power relations in workspace organization,” this study analyzes a set of original Bürolandschaft plans from the 1960s to 1970s. This approach assumes that changes in labor and management thinking leave visible signs in the architectural plans themselves, showing that the office is not just a neutral workspace but a tool for guiding behavior. Bürolandschaft is therefore considered not only as a spatial innovation but also as a response to shifting expectations about communication, efficiency, and worker autonomy. It is situated within a broader discussion of how power operates through spatial organization inside the flexible workplace that shaped the modern open office.
1.1 From Geometrical Discipline to Flexible Workspace
The office has long been regarded as an administrative extension of state or corporate power, with early examples such as the Palazzo Uffizi in Florence or the Bank of England (Caruso St John Architects & Mozas, 2017). Yet, it was the late nineteenth century’s communication technologies and new construction methods that concentrated clerical labor in large administrative buildings. In North America, this shift coincided with the rise of the skyscraper, whose steel-frame structure and deep floor plates became architectural emblems of industrial capitalism.
By the early twentieth century, the office had been functioning as an institutional and material enclosure in which disciplinary power was exercised. Efficiency centered management theories like Taylorism reshaped the white-collar workplace according to principles of measurement, visibility, and managerial control (Casteel, 2024). Offices began to mirror the factory floor with employees working under conditions similar to industrial production, seated in rows of desks under the direct gaze of a supervisor (Duffy, 1997). This supervisor’s desk or executive office was often located on an upper level mezzanine, offering a vantage point on the work floor as well as the workers, and visually reinforcing the hierarchical structure embedded into the plan scheme. Architects like Frank Lloyd Wright attempted to soften this mechanistic logic, most notably in the Larkin Building (1903–1905) and later in the Johnson Wax Headquarters (1937–1939), yet even these innovations remained bound to hierarchical and efficiency-driven organizational models.
Following World War II, American corporations required both larger administrative environments and stronger spatial expressions of corporate identity (Fraser, 2007). As a response, high-rise towers in expensive city centers and suburban office campuses were built. Use of glass defined the aesthetic of corporate modernism and represented transparency however, only lower-level workers were visible while executives remained secluded (Graham & Hurst, 1987).
As critiques of functionalist modernism intensified in the 1950s and 1960s, flexibility became a central architectural concern. This era is identified as the moment when designers recognized that buildings must accommodate evolving, unpredictable uses. Figures such as Walter Gropius, Louis Kahn, James Stirling, and John Weeks debated how to achieve adaptability (Forty, 2004), while Team X members, especially Aldo van Eyck and Herman Hertzberger, warned against abstract neutrality (van den Heuvel, 2018). To avoid the concept of flexibility morphing into a universal principle, Hertzberger proposed “polyvalency” instead: specific architectural forms that can support multiple uses without dissolving into formless openness, a principle he explored in the community-oriented office building Centraal Beheer (1970–1973).
These ideas set the stage for the development of Bürolandschaft in 1950s Germany, at a moment when office work was beginning to shift toward more communication and knowledge-based forms of labor. As post-war economies changed, rigid geometric layouts no longer matched the needs of workers whose tasks depended on information exchange, collaboration, and constant adjustment. The Quickborner Team responded to this new reality by designing flexible offices around communication flows rather than hierarchy, creating more open and fluid environments shaped by movement and interaction.
1.2 Work Beyond Industrial Production
The decades after the Second World War reshaped not only economic production but also everyday life. As white-collar employment expanded and work became increasingly centered on communication, knowledge, and creativity, value began to emerge from activities that were no longer tied to physical production but to information and social interaction. This shift towards immaterial labor happened in parallel with the rise of the welfare state and the emergence of a leisure-oriented society, both of which blurred the boundaries between work and personal life. Together, these developments produced a new kind of worker whose identity extended beyond the factory floor and into the office, the home, and even newly created spaces of recreation (Rumpfhuber, 2015). In this context, free time itself became a governed domain, structured, planned, and shaped to produce certain behaviors and social outcomes.
Immaterial labor refers to forms of work that create value through communication, information processing, and cultural production rather than through the act of physical manufacturing. Maurizio Lazzarato (2016) distinguishes two key dimensions: informational labor, which involves highly communicative, computer mediated tasks and cultural labor, which produces social meanings such as trends, tastes, and public opinion. Such labor is often invisible, normalized as everyday activity rather than recognized as work.
While immaterial labor was transforming the nature of work, the welfare state was reshaping the structure of everyday life. Emerging from the late nineteenth century social reforms and expanding rapidly after 1945 (Figure 3), the welfare state invested heavily in housing, health, education, and infrastructure, believing that planning and architecture could secure collective well-being (Gosseye & Heynen, 2013). Its “golden age” from the mid twentieth century onward coincided with new labor legislation that limited working hours and created evenings, weekends, and extended holidays. As free time increased, governments began constructing playgrounds, sports facilities, youth centers, parks, and they treated leisure as something that should be guided and cultivated rather than left entirely to market entertainment.
The welfare state expansion of leisure was not simply about rest: it was a means of shaping citizens, supporting personal development, encouraging sociability, and sustaining the wider economic system. Leisure thus became a continuation of labor by other means, its spaces carefully organized to cultivate certain forms of behavior and productivity (Wells, 2020). Seen from this perspective, Bürolandschaft’s integration of lounges, informal meeting zones, and break rooms located inside the workspace operated as part of this same biopolitical logic. By bringing moments of leisure and social interaction into the office plan, these spaces were not positioned as simple amenities but tools for directing communication, shaping workplace culture, and modulating the rhythms of immaterial labor, further dissolving the boundary between life and work.
1.3 Governing from Within
This governance of free time anticipates the biopolitical mechanisms discussed in this section, where the management of life becomes inseparable from the management of work. Leisure itself became a biopolitical instrument, designed to produce productive, disciplined, yet fulfilled subjects therefore, architecture regulated how people lived, rested, and reproduced their labor power.
Drawing on Foucault and Deleuze (1992), early offices can be seen as disciplinary institutions: spaces where bodies were trained to perform repetitive, standardized tasks, such as the “human computer” processing data for economic and administrative control. With the rise of immaterial labor, however, power shifted from external supervision to more diffuse, internalized mechanisms of control, where autonomy, feedback, and social organization became central to regulating behavior. The modern office and institutional architecture, through open layouts and visibility encouraged workers to internalize self-managed discipline while maintaining the appearance of freedom.
Bürolandschaft exemplifies this transformation. Unlike the rationalized open office, it emphasized flow, collaboration, and a more human-centered design. Features like opaque acoustic screens, thick carpeting, and strategically placed break rooms (Pausenräume) enable local intimacy and informal interaction, while still subtly guiding circulation and collaboration. These design strategies turned leisure spaces within the office into cybernetic and biopolitical tools: they encouraged social interaction, regulated break time, and shaped worker behavior according to organizational needs, reflecting a form of control that is internalized rather than externally imposed. Overall, the shift from disciplinary to modulatory control in office architecture mirrors broader social and economic transformations, including the rise of immaterial labor, the post-industrial welfare state, and the subtle governance of everyday life.
1.4 Cybernetic Control in the Office
Cybernetics, broadly understood as the study of self-regulating systems through feedback, transformed mid-twentieth century thinking about both organizations and architecture. It framed offices not as static containers but as dynamic systems in which information flows, human behavior, and spatial arrangements interact continuously. Gordon Pask (1969) described architecture itself as a cybernetic system, where buildings facilitate relationships, respond to users, and adapt through feedback loops. He further emphasized moving from simple control systems to second-order systems, where the observer is also a part of the system itself. Other theorists, including Norbert Wiener, and architects such as Cedric Price, Friedrich Kiesler, Nicholas Negroponte, and Christopher Alexander, applied these principles in design, creating spaces capable of self-organization, mutual adaptation, and continuous evolution (Spiller, 2007).
At the same time, computers and office automation transformed the nature of work, replacing repetitive human calculations with machines (D’Ignazio & Klein, 2020) and shifting control from bodies to information flows. The office became a site for managing immaterial labor, which produced intangible goods like knowledge, communication, and cultural content, rather than physical products.
Within this context, Bürolandschaft emerged as a spatial manifestation of cybernetic management: open, flexible, and modular layouts that organized desks, partitions, plants, and circulation to optimize communication and collaboration while embedding subtle behavioral guidance. These office landscapes reflected welfare-state principles by translating rational planning, efficiency, and social equilibrium from public infrastructure into corporate spaces, supporting both productivity and employee well-being.
1.5 The Groundbreaking Spatial Experiment
After World War II, German architecture responded to shifting labor practices with a flexible open plan arrangement derived from cybernetic system principles. This new workspace called Bürolandschaft, offered a radical critique of the rigid, hierarchical office layouts of the early twentieth century. Aiming to liberate the worker and humanize the work environment in this leisure society, landscaped office plans featured visually loose and even chaotic arrangement of furniture separated by plants and dividers instead of any walls. The flexible furniture layout could be altered according to user needs, even adapting to disciplines and measures that are difficult to quantify and visualize, such as workflow and the social relationships associated with it.
The name “office landscape” was catchy, but it bared the risk of reflecting only the aesthetic features of a complex planning approach developed by The Quickborner Team (Lorenzen & Jaeger, 1968, p. 165). Because this seemingly unorganized space was, in fact, done very intentionally and was grounded in the principles of feedback, communication paths and roles within the company.
However revolutionary Bürolandschaft seemed, it was not the first time in the history that management consultants were concerned with mapping paper movement and optimizing office space according to communications. In 1918, Lee Galloway mapped the “inefficient journey of a policy,” consolidating related departments within a single open plan space to reduce the processing time (Figure 4). Although, his chart was rooted in managerial efficiency rather than systems theory, his proposal nonetheless considered the office as a communication network.
Figure 4. Departmental arrangement under Galloway’s new organization (Galloway, 1919, p. 38)
Four decades later, the data-driven methodology, Organisationskybernetik (cybernetics of organization) was developed by The Quickborner Team using communication matrices and organizational diagrams to regulate space based on the information flow. The company’s information system was modeled according to quantified communication flows instead of the reporting lines (Gottschalk, 1968, p. 45; Lorenzen & Jaeger, 1968, p. 167). This distinction was crucial in finding out that frequent communications seldom follow the lines of command in an organization (Figure 5).
Far from being random, the office landscape was precisely designed in accordance with a catalog of requirements that continuously self-regulate and modulate the work. This data was then used to determine the “correct allocation” of departments and groups (Figure 6a), with the primary goal of physically placing teams that communicate frequently directly adjacent to each other on large, open floors, reducing physical barriers and speeding up information flow (Figure 6b). This approach contrasted sharply with earlier office types with corridor layouts and long office halls which were limited by fixed geometries and rigid circulation patterns. Bürolandschaft broke from these constraints by treating the floor as an open and flexible field where work groups and pathways could be arranged independent of the building’s structural grid. This flexibility allowed spaces to be continuously reorganized in response to changing communication needs, reflecting the cybernetic emphasis on information flow in modern office work.
Figure 6. a: Paper flow in an order processing department. b: Working groups in an open plan arranged by communication and paper flow (Lorenzen and Jaeger, 1968, pp. 170-171).
2. Spatial Reading
Yet this apparent liberation masked a subtler and more constantly present mechanism of control. By embedding regulation into communication flows, spatial flexibility, and continuous adjustment, Bürolandschaft signaled a shift from disciplinary society to a society of control. Consequently, this chapter interrogates the paradox of the flexible open office, revealing how its seemingly humane and dynamic spatial language operates as a sophisticated tool for modulating immaterial labor. With such formulation of space, both the role of the user and that of the objects were essential. To investigate this in practice, a collection of approximately 55 open-plan layouts was analyzed, a random selection of relevant plans are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Some landscaped office examples
Although Bürolandschaft abandoned the rigid plan schemes of the early twentieth century, it did not eliminate spatial rules altogether. Instead, control shifted from strict enclosure to more subtle prescriptions about movement, visibility, and spatial rhythm. Circulation paths were intentionally shaped to guide how people moved through the office (Figure 7), ensuring that the seemingly informal layout still directed interaction and workflow.
Figure 7. Circulation paths inside the workspace. a: GEG-Versand, Kamen, Germany, 1966. b: Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, N.Y., USA, 1968. c: Philips N.V., Eindhoven, Holland, 1967. d: Continental Gummiwerke AG, Hannover, Germany, 1967
The placement of break rooms was also highly strategic. Located adjacent to the building core (Figure 8) and at the end of the main access route, these spaces occupy positions that remain shaped by the principles of control and visibility inherited from earlier open-office models. While they provide areas for informal interaction and rest, their location still channels movement through the office, subtly guiding circulation and maintaining surveillance. Although the new design intended workers to take breaks at will, leisure spaces were positioned along primary pathways, keeping autonomy within a controlled spatial framework. Social interaction and relaxation were permitted, but the location of break rooms and the circulation layout subtly guided movement and maintained visibility. Former managerial control was removed, but it gave way to peer-control. In this way, even moments of autonomy and downtime were structured.
Figure 8. Break rooms (blue) are located right next to the building core (black)
Another guideline focused on column spacing. In earlier offices, the structural grid usually matched the size of rooms and the facade layout (Figure 9a). In Bürolandschaft, this link was intentionally broken so that furniture could be arranged more freely. Gottschalk (1968) explained that column spans smaller than 7.50 m made it difficult to place desks and partitions anywhere in the space, while spans between 7.50 m and 12.00 m gave the most flexibility, depending on whether the building used steel or reinforced concrete (Figure 9b). He also pointed out that columns strongly shape how a space feels. To avoid the grid creating a rigid, repetitive look, he recommended staggering the columns instead of placing them in strict rows. These guidelines reveal that flexibility in Bürolandschaft was not an absence of structure but a reconfiguration of it; by controlling circulation, column spacing, and visual openness, the system maintained organizational coherence while preserving the appearance of freedom. Importantly, these guidelines were consistently followed and implemented in the landscaped plans (Figure 9c).
While flexibility guided the overall design, specific work areas (especially those used by draftsmen) still remained relatively rational in plan (Figure 10). Workstations that required focused, process-driven tasks were arranged more systematically to reduce distractions and support workflows that depended on sequential or standardized processes. At the same time, these spaces retained the office landscape’s characteristic adaptability, allowing furniture and circulation to be adjusted as needed.
Figure 10. Rational placement of draftsmen furniture.
This spatial reading exposed how the language of openness and flexibility hides an architecture of control. Walls were removed but replaced with protocols of circulation, visibility, and communication, to reconfigure discipline into modulation. Workers were not confined by partitions anymore but still governed through self-management and continuous responsiveness. Therefore, what appeared as a humane landscape, operated as a spatial instrument for regulating autonomy itself.
3. Modulated Liberation
This research drew a theoretical framework based on the chronological development of the flexible open plan office, arguing that the plan arrangement is an active agent in organizing power relations. Flexibility is read as both a modernist principle and a corporate strategy embedding control directly into spatial and organizational flows. Ideals of a liberated worker subject and a flexible work environment had been proven no less controlling than the systems The Quickborner Team claimed to replace.
Open-plan offices promised autonomy and collaboration but also imposed expectations of constant adaptability and self-regulation. Therefore, space is not neutral but an ideological device that organizes behavior according to managerial objectives. The core paradox of Bürolandschaft lies in this hidden mechanism of control. While abandoning the rigid disciplinary enclosures of the early twentieth century, it simultaneously introduced a more diffuse and flexible form of regulation.
In this sense, the office landscape represents a transitional architecture that marks the shift from the disciplinary enclosures analyzed by Michel Foucault to the diffuse and adaptive systems of regulation described by Gilles Deleuze. Control no longer relies on rigid partitions or hierarchical order but is embedded in communication and circulation. The architectural features of the Bürolandschaft are not only aesthetic choices but material expressions of this new paradigm. They embody a mode of power that is less visible, less rigid, but no less controlling, designed to modulate the conditions of immaterial labor across the entire workspace.
From the most rational modernist grids to the seemingly liberated landscapes of Bürolandschaft, office plan was never designed to act neutral. Every plan operates as an ideological device, translating abstract notions of order, efficiency, and control into material form. Architecture then participates in a typology of power with a role shifting from enclosure to modulation, from fixed hierarchy to adaptive governance. No matter how office layouts evolve through new managerial paradigms, their underlying function remains constant: to organize worker’s behavior, to make labor visible, and to increase productivity disguised as flexibility or freedom.
This is evident even today with contemporary workplaces designed as playful, “home-like” environments, where break rooms, game areas, and cozy lounges are strategically placed to keep employees inside the building longer, subtly extending work hours while masking labor as leisure. What appears as openness and autonomy is often the architecture of compliance, shaping not only what we do but how we feel and where we spend our time.
4. Key Conceptual Reflections on Architectural Discourse
The history of Bürolandschaft shows that architectural space is not just an empty container. It actively shapes how organizations work. The open-plan office, often described as a technical or ergonomic improvement, is better understood as a “way of thinking about space,” one that defines how work, communication, and authority are organized. Instead of using enclosed rooms for control, Bürolandschaft uses openness, movement, and furniture layouts to guide behavior.
This study argues that the flexible office is not simply a new version of the modernist grid. It represents a more fundamental shift: flexibility becomes a tool for regulating how people work. In this sense, Bürolandschaft sits between Foucault’s ideas of discipline and Deleuze’s concept of control. It reflects a move from fixed boundaries to constantly changeable spatial conditions. Its open and adjustable layout shows how architecture can influence behavior through flows and proximities rather than solid walls.
Seeing it this way makes the open-plan office an important topic for architectural theory. We need to look beyond functional explanations and ask how space shapes people and supports certain organizational ideas. In today’s workplaces where digital technologies, emotional design strategies, and platform-based labor all interact, the lessons of Bürolandschaft remain highly relevant. They remind us that the office plan is not neutral; it is a cultural and political tool that influences how work is imagined and practiced.
In this perspective, the open-plan office becomes a lens for rethinking architecture’s role in forming social relations. By examining its development, we see a broader pattern: architecture consistently helps produce organizational power by turning manage the ideas into spatial form. Therefore, a critical theory of architecture and work must consider not only what space allows, but also what it quietly controls.
Acknowledgements
This research is based
on Elif Ece Ilgaz’s Master thesis, supervised by Prof. Dr. Nurbin Paker
Kahvecioğlu at the Architectural Design Master Program of Istanbul Technical
University.References
- Caruso St John Architects, & Mozas, J. (2017). The Office on the Grass: The Evolution of the Workplace (A. Fernandez Per, Ed.). a+t architecture publishers.
- Casteel, P. D. (2024). Taylorism, Fordism, and Post-Fordism. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from EBSCO: https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/taylorism-fordism-and-post-fordism
- Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the Societies of Control. October, 59, 3–7.
- D’Ignazio, C., & Klein, L. F. (2020). Data Feminisim. The MIT Press.
- Duffy, F. (1997). The New Office. China: Conran Octopus.
- Forty, A. (2004). Flexibility. In Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture (pp. 142–148). New York: Thames & Hudson.
- Fraser, M. (2007). Architecture and the ’Special Relationship’—The American Influence on Post-War British Architecture. New York: Routledge.
- Galloway, L. (1919). Office Management, Its Principles and Practice. New York: The Ronald Press Company.
- Gosseye, J., & Heynen, H. (2013). Architecture for leisure in post-war Europe, 1945– 1989: Between experimentation, liberation and patronisation. The Journal of Architecture, 18(5), 623–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2013.835334
- Gottschalk, O. (1968). Flexible Verwaltungsbauten. Quickborn: Verlag Schnelle.
- Graham, D., & Hurst, R. (1987). Corporate Arcadias. Artforum,
68–74.
-
Inci, O. (2025). Retrieved November 1, 2025,
from: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/V2k6an
- Lazzarato,
M. (2016). Immaterial Labor. Work, Migration, Memes, Personal Geopolitics,
(30), 78–88.
- Lorenzen, H. J., & Jaeger, D. (1968). The Office Landscape: A “Systems”
Concept. Contract, IX(1), 164–173.
- Pask, G. (1969). The Architectural Relevance of Cybernetics. Architectural Design, (September issue No 7/6), 494–496.
- Rumpfhuber, A. (2015). The architect as entrepreneurial self: Hans
Hollein’s TV performance “Mobile Office” (1969). In P. Deamer, The Architect
as Worker (pp. 44–57). London: Bloomsbury.
- Spiller, N. (2007). Soft Machines and Virtual Objects. In Visionary Architecture: Blueprints of the Modern Imagination (pp. 202–274). New York: Thames & Hudson.
- van den Heuvel, D. (2018). Architecture and democracy: Contestations
in and of the open society. In D. van den Heuvel (Ed.), Jaap Bakema and the
Open Society (pp. 240–257). Amsterdam: Archis.
- Wells, M. (2020). Work and Leisure in One Building: Norman Foster, Bürolandschaft, and the High-Tech Conception of Work, 1964–75. Journal of Civic Architecture, 2020(5), 86–95.