IBA Forum-Gastbeitrag Offices are more than a backdrop. They directly influence whether people feel safe, have privacy and experience a sense of belonging. An open-plan office may encourage interaction – but for some, it also means noise, constant interruptions and the feeling of being permanently observed. The absence of retreat spaces makes confidential conversations, focused work and short moments of recovery more difficult. Narrow pathways or poorly accessible areas exclude people with impairments. Questions such as „Who is visible?” and „Who can withdraw without attracting negative attention?” are also shaped by spatial design. In this way, workplaces do not only create conditions for productivity, but also for inclusion – or exclusion.
WHO HAS ACCESS TO WHICH RESSOURCES?
The concept of spatial justice, largely shaped by Edward W. Soja (2009), addresses the question of who has access to spatially distributed resources – both tangible infrastructures and less visible resources such as quiet, safety, visibility and opportunities for influence. Soja understands spatial justice both as an outcome and as a process. Inequalities become visible in concrete spatial structures, but they are also continuously reproduced through social and political mechanisms.
Spatial inequalities in work environments manifest along various dimensions. Workspaces are often implicitly designed for a supposedly „typical” employee – usually male and without impairments (Tagliaro et al., 2023; Klinksiek et al., 2025). Today, the expectation should be to design workplaces from the outset to be accessible and usable for a wide range of people.
The concept of universal design, originating from architecture, aims to create environments that are accessible to as many people as possible from the outset, rather than requiring later adaptation. This approach enables not only individuals with specific needs but also all users to fully realise their potential.
An inclusive, universally designed environment may include gender-neutral toilets, ensuring that sanitary spaces can be used equitably by everyone. It can also support neurodiversity by offering opportunities for sensory adjustment and fostering a sense of safety and self-efficacy (Scholz et al., 2026; Weber et al., 2024). Religious practices, too, are often structured or constrained by seemingly neutral workplace routines (Tagliaro et al., 2023; Klinksiek et al., 2025). In this context, universal spatial design means recognising diverse needs and enabling flexible use – for example, through multifunctional retreat spaces.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Three principles are essential when designing work environments. First, enable choice and adapt workplaces flexibly to tasks and individual needs. Second, provide opportunities for retreat to prevent overload and support focused work. Third, participation is crucial: inclusive spaces emerge when users are actively involved in their design. Co-design approaches involving employees help ensure that spaces meet real needs. Organisational research further specifies that work environments should be adaptable to diverse requirements, supported by flexible structures and developed collaboratively with employees (e.g. Bergefurt et al., 2024; Klinksiek et al., 2025; Kropman et al., 2023; Scholz et al., 2024). In practice, several concrete design strategies can be recommended:
- Zoning based on logic and sensory quality:
Different work areas arranged according to typical task-related use (so-called comfort in patterns and schedules) - Clarity and openness:
Avoid overcrowded spaces (people, equipment, paperwork), ensure clear, barrier-free circulation routes and safety measures - Small work clusters:
Dividing open-plan offices into units of two to five people, with acoustic and visual separation to enhance concentration and engagement - Opportunities for retreat and individual work:
Quiet workstations with sensory adjustments (e.g. lighting or headphones) reduce overstimulation and support focus, particularly for neurodivergent employees - Minimising disruptive stimuli:
Clearly defined quiet areas, avoidance of loud ventilation or squeaky furniture, limiting eating areas and reducing strong cleaning agents or fragrances - Adaptive sound masking (ASM):
Sensors measure sound levels in real time and dynamically adjust masking noise, reducing distractions caused by background conversations and improving mental well-being - Lighting optimisation:
Dynamic LED lighting aligned with natural circadian rhythms can enhance concentration and reduce fatigue - Biophilic design:
Integrating one to three plants per workstation can increase productivity and reduce stress symptoms; views of nature also have measurable stress-reducing effects - Digital accessibility:
Subtitles and automatic translations in digital meetings improve accessibility for hearing-impaired employees and international teams alike
CONCLUSION
A holistic approach to workplace design must consider who encounters barriers and who is able to participate. The perspective of spatial justice highlights that spaces actively contribute either to the reproduction or the reduction of social inequalities. Crucially, diverse needs must be considered from the outset, rather than addressed retrospectively. At the same time, it is clear that this is not a simple task. The tension between standardised spatial conditions and individual needs remains – particularly in light of the current trend towards reducing office space. Moreover, inclusion is not achieved through spatial design alone. Only through the interaction of space, organisation and culture can work environments truly enable diversity. A key factor is a workplace culture that takes both comfort and its absence seriously, using both as opportunities for organisational learning.
