I think the basic disconnect being expressed in the widly varying opinions seen in this thread is:
You can design an open office to work well.
You can design an open office to be a sweatshop fitting in the maximum number of employees at the lowest cost.
You cannot do both.
------
I have worked in an open office I liked. It was the former. Plenty of huddle rooms and other private spaces, different groups physically had a good amount of open floor space between them and another group, and great design to minimize visual distractions for people.
I do not believe it saved any significant amount of floorspace over a more traditional cube setup. But it worked well and I didn't have major complaints.
However, I have seen far more "open offices" that are just purely out to fit the most employees in the smallest space, and everyone is always miserable in those.
You can design an open office to work well.
You can design an open office to be a sweatshop fitting in the maximum number of employees at the lowest cost.
You cannot do both.
------
I have worked in an open office I liked. It was the former. Plenty of huddle rooms and other private spaces, different groups physically had a good amount of open floor space between them and another group, and great design to minimize visual distractions for people.
I do not believe it saved any significant amount of floorspace over a more traditional cube setup. But it worked well and I didn't have major complaints.
However, I have seen far more "open offices" that are just purely out to fit the most employees in the smallest space, and everyone is always miserable in those.