Law Firm Fit-Out: Window Offices Versus Open-Plan Daylight

Start with a public-to-private gradient from the elevator core. Reception and the 12-person conference room sit near the core so visitors do not walk through the work zone. The file room and break room go in the interior zone, where they can use windowless area and serve as acoustic buffers. The work zones follow the perimeter for daylight, but not every attorney can have a window office if the open plan is to receive light. I would test two blocks: Option A puts 12 offices on the perimeter and pushes 45 workstations into the interior, which consumes about 3,000 nsf of open plan and leaves deep, dim zones; Option B puts a smaller number of offices at the corners and along the short elevations, and places the remaining attorneys in glass-fronted shared offices or team rooms, allowing the open plan to touch the window wall. The client should see both in block plan with a daylight and circulation diagram. The notch is not usable for workstations because the landlord wants it preserved; it can become a terrace or a service court, but not a place to hide files. The 44 in corridor around the core must stay clear, and the 12-person conference room must not create a dead end. I would also test furniture efficiency: 45 workstations at 64 nsf is 2,880 nsf, which is not the problem; the problem is the window wall and the number of enclosed rooms.

I would quantify the consequences of each option: linear feet of window wall consumed by offices, percentage of workstations with a view or direct daylight, distance from workstations to the nearest window, and the area of interior zone that will need additional lighting. If 12 offices at 10 ft wide consume 120 linear ft of a perimeter that may be only 600 to 700 linear ft, that is a large share. Then I would show that glass-fronted offices and shared team rooms can preserve enclosure and acoustic privacy without taking every window. The compromise is to give named partners enclosed offices at the corners with two exterior walls, give senior associates shared glass-front offices on the perimeter, and give the open plan a clear daylight zone within 20 to 25 ft of the glass. The file room and break room move to the core. I would also check the lease: if the rentable area includes the notch, the firm is paying for area it cannot use, so the plan should recover efficiency elsewhere. The decision should be recorded in a signed programming memo so the design team is not caught between competing status claims later.

The notch creates two conditions to verify: travel distance around the notch and dead-end corridor length. With two stairs at opposite ends, the floor likely has two remote exits, but the path from the far side of the notch to either stair must be measured, not assumed. A 240 ft long floor can produce travel distances beyond the code limit if the tenant occupies the far end and the stair is at the opposite end. The corridor around the core is 44 in wide, which is adequate for a business occupancy corridor serving a modest occupant load, but the egress width must be checked against the calculated occupant load for the whole tenant, including conference rooms and reception. The 12-person conference room near reception may create a concentrated load at the core, so the corridor and door widths there need verification. I would also check whether the notch creates a dead-end corridor longer than allowed, whether the exit access path passes through the file room, and whether the landlord's future tenant separation wall would block a required path. The block plan should show exit access paths, travel distances, and the location of any rated separation. If a path fails, the fix may be a third exit or a reconfiguration of the file room, not a cosmetic corridor change.