Before beginning the search for new office space, we developed and refined our “Program,” confirming an approximate “Rentable Area” required to support our people, functions, and equipment. We understood that total area alone wasn’t the only factor; space requirements could be met and organized differently depending on the building. Some layouts would naturally suit our needs better than others.

‍

Factors like column bay spacing and building core conditions significantly influenced our approach to overall space planning. These variations created floor plans unique to each building, offering opportunities for dynamic and functional workplace designs. To determine how each potential building could accommodate Interplan, we began the Test Fitting process.

‍

Our design team translated the Program of spatial requirements into “Test Fit” space plans for each building under consideration. Key considerations included:

·      Size and function of each space within the suite

·      Circulation to and throughout the suite

·      Hierarchy of public vs. private spaces

·      Adjacencies of various space types and activities

·      Access to natural light

‍

Initially, we narrowed our options to three main buildings from 15 reviewed (six of which we toured). Each had its advantages and drawbacks. Over the course of a week, our team sketched and rearranged layouts for these three buildings. Critical priorities during this phase included:

·      Entry sequence and relationship to the elevator lobby

·      Efficient column bay spacing aligned with programmatic needs

·      Maximizing access to exterior windows

·      Strategic placement of private offices relative to the open studio

·      Designing a seamless client experience and a front-facing circulation loop

In tandem with the Test Fitting, we worked with our Brokers to request proposals from each landlord and began preliminary lease negotiations with our “Top 3” buildings. These discussions lasted about a month, involving several rounds of feedback between brokers. Our goal was to finalize a space and sign a lease by early Q2 2024.

‍

That did not happen…

‍

After focusing negotiations on our top-choice building, the deal fell through. Weeks of back-and-forth with the landlord ended in disappointment, and we had to walkaway. To make matters worse, Options 2 and 3 had already entered lease negotiations with other tenants. We had missed our window of opportunity.

‍

We were back at square one three months later—a full reset.

‍

As with most design processes, each iteration brought refinement. The second round of testfits benefitted from insights gained in the first. With each attempt, our design team honed ideas about what we truly wanted in our new space and how best to organize it.

‍

When we completed three new test fits for three new buildings, one stood out. Its floorplan aligned with our needs, the numbers worked, and it felt like the best fit. As we moved forward with negotiations, we internally explored three alternative design schemes for this space, finding it flexible enough to adapt to our evolving vision.

‍

We signed the lease by mid-July 2024, a few months behind schedule. Despite the delays, we were confident that this building would serve as a strong foundation for our operations and support our team’s success in the years to come.

‍