UK architects keen to return to the office full-time
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/369de/369def04f033b8966ff1f30846187b48b303c81c" alt="UK architects keen to return to the office full-time"
Most architects in the UK want to return to the office full-time as the Covid pandemic eases, rather than continue with a ‘hybrid’ mix of home and office working, a new survey suggests.
A majority (53 per cent) of architects surveyed by netMAGmedia said they would be “returning to an office environment” to support greater collaboration and connection with colleagues.
In total, 48 per cent said the “lack of connection with colleagues” was the main drawback of working from home during the pandemic.
This was double the score of the next largest complaint, which was IT issues affecting design collaboration, an issue for 24 per cent of respondents. Also cited as key reasons for preferring the office were the ability to liaise directly with senior staff (20 per cent of respondents), the impact on focus on productivity (17 per cent), and being less involved with key decisions (15 per cent).
The findings were gathered as part of a programme of audience research which netMAGmedia, publisher of architects’ monthly magazine ADF, is conducting in partnership with Edge Insight. Of the architects surveyed, 81 per cent had been working from home during the Covid pandemic (in addition to mandatory lockdown periods).
Of the architects who said they would be returning to the office, 66 per cent would be full-time, 16 per cent two to four days in the office, and 18 per cent one to two days, with four days in the office being the average, according to respondents. However, despite the trend to move back to a collaborative environment, 35 per cent said they were keen to continue working from home.
According to the survey, Covid had had a range of negative effects on their practice. The main factor (for 51 per cent of respondents) was project delays, with the next highest being delays to clients’ investment decisions (40 per cent). Following those were furloughing staff (38 per cent), reduction in income (36 per cent), projects being cancelled (29 per cent), cuts in project budgets (20 per cent), and redundancies (11 per cent). A small minority of 18 per cent of respondents said they had been unaffected.