A Realistic Approach

Complexities of VT design must be weighed in response to the pandemic.

The year 2020 has changed the way we work, live and socialize. The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges and altered the ways we are connected. Every space is being redefined in terms of how it is used. Personal hygiene, masking up and observing social distancing are standard now, with people becoming increasingly vigilant and conscious of their safety, well-being and surroundings. This reality has had an irreversible impact on the realty sector.

Social distancing mandated during the pandemic may have negative effects on vertical traffic in buildings, especially those where elevators are the means of transportation. Elevators are considered the most efficient way of transporting large populations up high in the building. Given that they are closed spaces with large, exposed surfaces, elevators are now the most risk-multiplying components in a building. With experts suggesting many options — such as restricting elevator occupancy to less than 50% of carrying capacity, using touchless and voice-activated controls, providing ionizers inside the cabin, UV-light disinfection tools and regularly sanitizing the lobbies — the urban habitat is slowly preparing to open up. 

Back to the Office

Early surveys suggested the majority of employees preferred remote working, saying they felt more productive working from home. However, recent surveys indicate a change in attitude, with most workers saying they want to return to the office and be among their peers. The challenges of allowing full-fledged offices to function are plenty. Companies need to ensure that hygiene and proper social distancing norms are followed, and acceptable SOP’s are in place to safeguard employees.

In multi-storied office buildings, maintaining a safe and clean vertical-transportation (VT) system is one of the major challenges in keeping the spread of infections low. The implementation of social distancing, such as requirements that people maintain 6 ft of distance, makes many office elevators cramped spaces able to fit only three to four persons. At this level of occupancy, the VT infrastructure would not be able to handle the traffic, even if the building is occupied at just 30-35%. 

With economics playing a major role in decision-making, there are some very critical questions to be answered:

1. Does the occupier consider it worthwhile to allow just 30-35% occupancy in a building in which the cost of rentals is very high? Will it be economically viable to do so?

2. Is adding more elevators a solution when capital and operation costs are high and elevators consume a substantial amount of usable space?

3. Even if mitigations are put in place, will they increase the operating costs — possibly even doubling them — rendering the service or product uncompetitive in the market? 

When we look at the various projects in the pipeline, the startling finding is that there are no significant changes to the approach in which commercial office buildings are being designed. In a highly competitive market, the developer should ensure every square foot of space is productive and occupiable, while the tenant must ensure value for the money when rental agreements are entered. In fact, the only major design changes have been with respect to elevator access control and call registration. 

Optimism Is Common

Most developers are extremely optimistic about the future. They see near-normal occupancy once the COVID-19 scenario settles down, though this may take a few months. In any case, normalization in the construction sector will also take considerable time. Many large companies are conducting vaccine camps to inoculate their employees free of charge, both to fulfill their responsibility as an employer and in hope that sooner or later they may need to return to the office. It makes sense for developers to be hopeful.

As the world prepares to reopen offices, the approach to occupancy may come with some reforms. While the population estimates will follow the standard process, the occupier may use discretion in the way space is occupied to lower risk. For example, work may be spread over more shifts to avoid crowding, though this practice may wane over time. Many companies may allow employees to work from home more often as a practice, not just to manage office occupancy but as a way to enhance staff productivity. On the other hand, some employers may call on more workers to report to a common address and thus enhance the efficiency of the occupied space. Regardless, changes in occupancy patterns may not be permanent, but rather short-term strategies to overcome issues related to managing crowds in the office when infection rates are still notably prevalent.

Under these circumstances, continuing to design VT systems in office buildings to meet the prevailing performance requirements is a prudent approach. An alternate path would likely have serious consequences that may result in over- or under-elevatoring the building — neither of which is good. As a matter of abundant caution, it should be OK to increase the handling efficiency of a building’s elevators by a maximum of 10%, but no more. 

For example, a designer may consider a 5-min handling efficiency of 11%, as opposed to his normal practice of 10%, for multi-tenant buildings, and about 17%, as opposed to 15%, for single-tenant buildings. This may not majorly impact either the budget or the useable space, and may ease queuing in elevator lobbies that are normally strained because of a conservative approach generally prevalent in the VT industry.  

VT Innovations

Elevator manufacturers are constantly innovating and providing new accessories to enhance hygiene in their products. For the building developer, it is good to invest in these accessories, which include an ionizer inside the elevator cabin and lobby, touch-free proximity, sensor-based call registration, anti-microbial coating for exposed surfaces and a ventilation system that provides more air changes per hour. In addition to their hygienic properties, these VT innovations can also enhance the value of a building.

The best approach now is to not make any changes to the design considerations but to follow the current practice or, at most, increase the standard handling efficiency by a maximum of 10%. The future may hold surprises, and it will be very difficult to predict how societies and corporations will respond to situations. The interventions should not be a deterrent to an efficient design, and the approach should look more optimistically at the situation returning to normalcy soon.